Respuestas a esta discusión

Permalink Responder para Kinana el agosto 12, 2012 a las 10:52am

Thanks for this Alan

I probably read it the first time around but ignored it.  There is so much lazy, one-size-fits-all analysis of religion and belief systems that it is very tiresome.  People see some similarities (e.g. a belief in God/god) and refuse to see the differences.  Nuances and differences are to be avoided because it makes for easier thinking or it fits easier into a political  agenda or even the belief system of the individual.  'The Bible and the Koran' are not looked at in the same way by people who uphold those two sources as sacred to their beliefs, so how outsiders can understand those sources without applying the same filters seems to me like poor scholarship.

Alan Lake said:

Ha, ha, I missed this last time around:

Responder para John Carlson el junio 2, 2012 a las 1:04pm
I've read both the Bible and the Koran very carefully, and there is no doubt that the Bible is at least as bad as the Koran. In my opinion, it's far worse. So it's really hypocritical to try to ban one, and not the other. Personally, I don't think either one should be banned because doing so would grossly violate the right of Freedom of Speech.

There's so much wrong with that small paragraph, Its hard to know where to begin. But the best start is just to say "Well you start your own petition then!".  Oh but he can't, because of this magical "free speech" argument, which is given without any regard to the whole context of the petition and the democratic framework, which itself references Free Speech.

Is it hypocritical to give money to starving Africans, when there are also starving Indonesians?  
Is it even hypocritical to give money to starving Indonesians when there are Africans starving even worse?

"I've read both the Bible and the Koran very carefully..." - we'd better bow to your expert knowledge then?

In 4 lines he manages to break so many good behaviour guidelines and mischievously tries to waste so much of our time, I can't believe we let him stay here so long.

Permalink Responder para shiva el agosto 13, 2012 a las 10:32am

Yo Dave

In all fairness, it was not John Carlson who is digging up facts about Imran Firsat, but me. The moment I read this article, I did not feel easy, His wife claims to be Buddhist, and her parents and brothers where murdered in Indonesia, so I find it extremely unlikely a young  Indonesian Buddhist of Chinese descent  fleeing to Pakistan, it doesn't make sense, and then to go back, especially Tangerang where a lot of murder and rapes happened in 1998 after the overthrow of General Suharto,

 The Germans Did not believe their story and sent then to Indonesia, The deportation of failed ultimately because of the Federal Border forgot the necessary papers. Back in Frankfurt, the pressure continues associations so they get a document that allows them to reside temporarily in preparation for their deportation. Following the advice of an African met in the detention center at the airport they decide to leave Germany for Spain, because he says the law is more permissive in Spain than in other countries. Despite that there was a powerful petition backing him in Germany,

Link

 So when they arrive in Spain their asylum claim is rejected at the first stage as they could be expected. The Dublin agreement signed by all European countries of the Schengen states that a person may not make an asylum claim in one of European countries and the countries jurisdiction to consider his application for asylum is the country of his foot in first, so in the case of this couple in Germany. 

 What basically started as a Romeo Juliet tear breaker, changed when it became obvious to them In Spanish law it is expected that one can file a second time a claim if the elements of persecution have changed. And for this couple is the case: most of the articles published since their arrival in Europe and denunciation of the persecution they suffered in their country makes their eventual return to Pakistan dangerous. But if they start talking about their religion returns will be even more perilous . Imran's speech will then pass the defense of the welfare of his family in a straightforward accusation of Islam is the head of all evil. In interviews he does on local television because it his personal enemy of the Prophet, accusing him of having been able to take as many woman he wanted, while he can not even marry the woman he loves. He says this is not the fault of those who govern, it is the fault of Islam.

 Now Why Did he go to Indonesia ?

I still do not see him making any attempt for him to bring his wife out of Indonesia, that is if she wishes to be with him. He may claim to be an ex-muslim,but he still behaves like a muslim.

No Dave I do not follow blindly what I read on the bigger blogs. Yes even Faithfreedom contains a lot of porkies, where there is quite a bit about this guy.

  

Permalink Responder para Alan Lake el agosto 14, 2012 a las 3:43am

As usual, Shiva digs out the truth behind the case.  Like Danny Jeffrey says, you should have been a private investigator!

Yes, that must be the explanation for his Petition against the Quran.  Still, no reason for us not to be opportunistic :-)

Permalink Responder para Kinana el junio 6, 2014 a las 1:30pm

Update

Spain to Deport Pakistani Refugee for Criticizing Islam

by Soeren Kern
June 6, 2014 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4344/imran-firasat-spain

"Okay, you Muslims, use violence, but we will continue to make films. One day, one of us will lose." — Imran Firasat.

Firasat argued that the expression of his views about Islam fall within the constitutional rights of free speech.

Two dissenting judges signed a statement in which they ask whether the source of the danger to national security is in the actions of Firasat or in the reactions of Islamic fundamentalists.

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that a political refugee should be deported because his criticism of Islam poses "a danger to the security of Spain."

The May 30 ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by a lower court to revoke the refugee status of a Pakistani ex-Muslim named Imran Firasat, showcases how the fear of Muslim rage continues to threaten the exercise of free speech in Europe.

Firasat obtained political asylum in Spain in October 2006 because of death threats against him in both Pakistan and Indonesia for leaving the Islamic faith and marrying a non-Muslim.

Iran Firasat and his family.

Spanish authorities, however, took measures to deport Firasat in December 2012, after he released a one-hour amateur film entitled, "The Innocent Prophet: The Life of Mohammed from a Different Point o...." The movie, which was posted on YouTube, purports to raise awareness of the dangers of Islam to Western Civilization.

The film shows images of the Muslim terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, on double-decker buses in London and on commuter trains in Madrid. The movie, which features many passages from the Koran that threaten violence against non-Muslims, promises to answer the question: "Was Mohammed an inspired prophet of God, or was he a madman driven by his own demons, thus producing a religion of violence and tyranny?"

Firasat, who runs a website called MundoSinIslam.com (A World Without Islam), says he was inspired by another amateur film, "The Innocence of Muslims," which portrayed the Islamic Prophet Mohammed as a womanizer and a pedophile. Released in September 2012, the movie triggered a wave of riots across Europe and the Middle East that resulted in the deaths of more than 30 people.

At the time, the Obama Administration falsely alleged that the film was responsible for the death of the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three others in Benghazi, Libya.

"When I heard that the U.S. ambassador was slain," Firasat told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen in December 2012. "I said okay, you Muslims, use violence, but we will continue to make films. One day one of us will lose."

Shortly after Firasat's film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.

A Foreign Ministry document, dated November 27, 2012, stated that "the consequences of the release of a video with such [anti-Islamic] characteristics are highly worrisome and constitute a real risk for Spanish interests because the author of the video identifies himself as a 'Spanish citizen.'"

The document added that Firasat's actions, including his threats to burn the Koran, were "destabilizing" and "heightened the risk of attacks against Spanish interests abroad, especially in the current context of the extreme sensitivity and indignation in the Muslim world."

Fernández issued an order on December 21, 2012 to deport Firasat based on Article 44 of the Law on Asylum and Protection, which allows the state to revoke the refugee status of "persons who constitute a threat to Spanish security." The deportation order stated that Firasat constituted a "persistent source of problems due to his constant threats against the Koran and Islam in general."

Firasat appealed the deportation order at the National Court [Audiencia Nacional], arguing that the expression of his views about Islam fall within the constitutional right to free speech.

But the National Court rejected Firasat's appeal. A ruling dated October 3, 2013 states:

"The right to the freedom of expression can be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or sanctions, which constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, to preserve national security, public security and the constitutional order."

Now the Supreme Court has not only confirmed the National Court's ruling, but it has gone one step farther. Its ruling states:

"The right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that infringe against religious freedom, that have the character of blasphemy or that seek to offend religious convictions and do not contribute to the public debate."

This paragraph is strangely similar to an international blasphemy law being promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries dedicated to implementing a worldwide ban on "negative stereotyping of Islam."

Warning of potential trouble ahead for the exercise of free speech in Spain, two judges—Manuel Campos and Isabella Perelló—dissented from the majority opinion. They signed a statement in which they ask whether the source of the danger to national security is in the actions of Firasat, or in the reactions of Islamic fundamentalists. They write:

"The pernicious effects against national security do not strictly derive from the conduct of the refugee, but rather from the violent reactions of third persons."

Although Firasat can now be deported, the court says he and his family will not be delivered "to a country where there is danger to life or freedom." It remains unclear whether Firasat will appeal the Spanish high court ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Strasbourg-based ECHR enforces the European Convention on Human Rights and its jurisdiction is compulsory and binding for all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

In a December 2012 interview with the online newspaper International Business Times [IBT], Firasat said he has received far more threats from the Spanish government than from angry Muslims. He said:

"Seven years ago I was granted refugee status in Spain for the reason that I used to criticize Islam. Since then I have taken the fight against Islam very far. And my right to freedom of expression was always respected by this great country. But now suddenly for doing the same thing which I have been doing for the last seven years, I have been threatened by the authorities [and told] that my refugee status will be revoked. I will be deported back to Pakistan where the death penalty for blasphemy is waiting for me."

IBT asked Firasat: "What made the Spanish authorities 'suddenly threaten' you? What could be the reason?" Firasat responded:

"That's a very funny, interesting and surprising question even for me. Why now? I was granted asylum because of my criticisms of Islam. I have formally asked the Spanish government for the prohibition of Koran in Spain. I have given thousands of interviews to radio and TV channels. I wrote articles in newspapers. But I was never told by anyone that what I am doing is illegal. Now suddenly they try to revoke my refugee status, detain me and prosecute me for offending Muslims' religious sentiments. Why? There may be two reasons: Fear of violence by Muslims abroad and in Spain, and conflicts in diplomatic relations with Islamic countries which are investing in Spain... This is not the Spain where I arrived seven years ago and where there was complete liberty of expression."

Some free speech activists say that Firasat is himself guilty of seeking to restrict free speech. In March 2012, Firasat filed a 10-point petition with the Spanish government asking that it ban the Koran in Spain.

In an interview with the Spanish business newspaper La Gaceta (no longer online), Firasat explained why he submitted the petition:

"There are hundreds of verses in the Koran that encourage believers to kill, hate, discriminate, exact revenge and torture women. A book that promotes violence should not be circulating in a free and democratic society. In the last 10 years, all terrorist attacks have been promoted by Islamic jihad as contained in the Koran.

"Over 100 places in the Koran mention the phrases such as 'go to war' or 'kill all the infidels until everyone is submitted to Allah.' And the Koran requires Muslims to continue to fight jihad until it has captured the Western world, its freedoms and its religion at any cost.

"I formally asked the government of Spain to ban the Koran in Spain. It is a book that cannot exist in our free society. There are millions of Muslims who follow the book, but we cannot allow millions of other people who want to live in peace and in freedom and enjoy human rights to suffer and die. I do not understand why the Spanish penal code, the Spanish constitution and the European constitution prohibit violence of any kind and yet close their eyes when talking about the Koran."

Two days after filing his petition to outlaw the Koran, the Spanish National Police [Policía Nacional] called Firasat in for questioning after it emerged that he wanted to burn a Koran at the Plaza del Sol in central Madrid.

According to a police statement dated March 5, 2012, agents asked Firasat if he "understood that his actions could hurt the religious sensibilities of those who profess the Muslim faith." He was also asked if he was "conscious that the burning of the Koran could be considered a crime" according to Title XXI, Chapter IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code [referring to crimes against offending religious sentiments]."

After reviewing his website with the police, Firasat said: "I am not hurting the feelings of any Muslim. Rather, I am taking an action that seems necessary against a book which gives the message of jihad: killing, hatred, violence and discrimination, which in no way is compatible with Spanish law."

Firasat summed up his feelings in a newspaper interview: "Fighting the injustice of Islam is not so easy. On the one hand there are the Islamists who are seeking to kill me, and on the other side our own police, our own system which seeks to intimidate me and dissuade me from confronting Islam."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Permalink Responder para Joe el junio 6, 2014 a las 3:48pm

I don't really care if this man is insane or what (Shiva used to think there was something decidedly dodgy about him).

That the judges in Spain could make it illegal to criticise islam, and deport someone who was already given asylum on the basis that the follower of islam wanted to kill him.

Imagine: it's 1939, and a jew flees Nazi persecution to London. Once there, he starts to call for the banning of the British Union of Fascists, and saying that Mein Kampf is a seriously dangerous book (now banned in the Netherlands).

This jew then gets told he's being deported, because Nazis might take his criticism as hostile.

What disgustingly craven politicians, judges, journalists and academics.

Permalink Responder para Alan Lake el junio 7, 2014 a las 1:51am

Now the Supreme Court has not only confirmed the National Court's ruling, but it has gone one step farther. Its ruling states:

"The right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that infringe against religious freedom, that have the character of blasphemy or that seek to offend religious convictions and do not contribute to the public debate."

This paragraph is strangely similar to an international blasphemy law being promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries dedicated to implementing a worldwide ban on "negative stereotyping of Islam."

So now Spanish judges are not only going to have to judge what is 'offensive' and what is a 'religion', but even more reliably, what does not "not contribute to the public debate".  You couldn't make this stuff up. How far is that from, was it Oscar Wildes observation, that Free Speech is precisely for that speech that offends.  Now it must not only be non-offensive, it must be 'productive' as well.  

We have an entire generation of Europeans that have not only lost their spine and become cowards, they've lost the distinction between subjective and objective in jurisprudence.

Permalink Responder para shiva el junio 29, 2014 a las 1:27pm

Joe dijo:

I don't really care if this man is insane or what (Shiva used to think there was something decidedly dodgy about him).

I still do

It is amazing how they are still using the old picture of Firasat and his family

Here is are a few images from a TV channels site 

 http://news.liputan6.com/read/301928/pelaku-mutilasi-akhirnya-terkuak

Left is a Triana, Firasats misress, who was arrest 16 july, nine days after Firasat fled Indonesia, she was sentenced to 9yrs for the murder of Victor Rizky Wibowo

Right is his wife Linna Serachman (Jenny Setiawan, she was sentenced to 20 months for passport forgery 

What is remarkable here is is in indonesia she is called Linna Serachman. It has only just dawned on me that Serachman is an Islamic name

Se is a prefix meaning one, first Rachman is an indonesian derivative of Rahman

Also it is interesting about the document forgery.

Here is a news article from 2008

They took flight leaving a trail of victims and debts behind. Imran Firasat and Jenny Setiawan, political refugees in Cantabria who need to answer before a court in relation to the case filed by their business partners from Santander, have abandoned the flat they were living in and also the city. And the lawyer for the accusers has now asked the judge for a search and capture order covering all the national territory. For the many Cantabrians who threw themselves into helping them because of their hard personal history, the Pakistani and the Indonesian must have been a great disappointment.

Firasat and Setiawan succeeded in gaining temporary authorisation to reside in Cantabria in view of their exceptional circumstances: marriage between a Muslim and a Buddhist is punished by both religions, which prevented them from returning to either of their countries of origin. Having arrived in this region from Germany, Firasat moved like a fish in water between institutions and communication media. He even organised an internet campaign to support his cause. 

Having achieved their goal of regularising their stateless situation, the pair opened a catering business in the Grupo Amaro in Santander, called 'Kebabish'. Under this name they formed a company with two Cantabrian couples who quarrelled with them in relation to business-related crimes approximately one month ago: after opening three premises (the Grupo Amaro one, another in Menéndez Pelayo and a third in Marqués de la Hermida), the young man and his wife sold them without the knowledge of their business partners. <b>This gave rise to the complaint for document falsification and administrative fraud.</b> 

One of the accusers had also rented a home to them. Because they stopped paying the rent a few months ago, an eviction process has been started. 

These were not the only “irregularities” committed by the political refugees. Maite Calderón, owner of a signage company, has also filed a complaint with the police after observing that the Pakistani had given her a cheque without any funds for an amount just below 600 euros. The businesswoman says it is not the money that bothers her (“I don’t expect to get it back”) but the “tremendous disappointment”. “The personal deception hurts me. When he gave me the cheque dated February, he was already preparing his flight”.

Calderón – who had no previous knowledge of the history of the immigrants through the media – is aware that the young man “had a wide circle of people who were supporting him. He offered to make all of them partners in his business. Now it’s clear his only aim was to rip them off”. 

She doesn’t think it will be easy to find him. “It would be a stroke of luck”, she notes. A fortune for all those who have been left unpaid, she indicates, “because there were also people, like bar suppliers, that he has left owing”.

The family that support him in his business projects have it worst. A few days ago they learned that they will have to pay the bank the amount they guaranteed for him and they are very upset.

And the local government also have knowledge of the couple, who got a grant to start their business which these sources put at almost 5,000 euros with specific conditions that, if not fulfilled, would mean it had to be returned. 

For this reason an investigation has been opened, as has been confirmed by the ex-partners of the Pakistani and the first to accuse him in the situation, who are moving heaven and earth to find him.

These persons add that, among the victims, is a former employee and the compatriot to whom he sold the premises in Menéndez Pelayo. It seems the man who convinced so many people of his painful family situation will have to give many explanations. But for that, he first has to stick his neck out.

http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/20080224/cantabria/firasat-levanta-v...

One other thing worth noting 

International Business Times [IBT], Firasat said "Seven years ago I was granted refugee status in Spain for the reason that I used to criticize Islam

He has made this claim on many CJM sites Yet when we look at the Spanish news article above we find

 Firasat and Setiawan succeeded in gaining temporary authorisation to reside in Cantabria in view of their exceptional circumstances: marriage between a Muslim and a Buddhist

Here is another image from the TV site, this time it is of the victim Victor Rizky Wibowo

Oh BTW all the best to every one 

Permalink Responder para Alan Lake el junio 30, 2014 a las 8:08pm

Thanks for digging stuff up again Shiva!

I think we have to compartmentalise our minds.  Firasat is clearly a conman (and a pretty successful one at that).

On the other hand, as part of his M.O., he chose to exploit the vulnerabilities and contradictions in our legal systems and cultural mindset, in order to gain residence in the West, and gain protection and special privileges from the state.

In that respect, we can treat him like a very useful test case.  Its because of the fact that he was specifically targeting our flaws, and because he actually went thru the claims processes (instead of just writing about them as theoretical states, in a blog), that his test case is so useful.  It gets us exactly what we want, what we assert, not as a theoretical possibility, but as an actual fact, enacted and recorded in legal precedent.

So Firasat has proved for us that in Spain:

• Pleas on the basis of fictitious claims of discrimination  can be used to gain superior privileges and exemptions, rights which would not be granted to you and me.  That is blatant discrimination against you and me.
• Facing pressure from the thugs of Islam, the West is starting to recognise and enforce the Sharia Law on blasphemy.

• ‹ Anterior
• 1
• 2
• Siguiente ›
• Página