Asia Bibi finally leaves Pakistan—for Canada

May 8, 2019 • 11:45 am

I’ve written quite a lot about the case of Asia Bibi, whose real name is Aasiya Noreen (see my list of posts here). She’s a Pakistani Christian woman who was convicted of blasphemy against Islam under trumped-up charges. She then spent eight years in solitary confinement (blasphemy is a capital crime in Pakistan).

Last year, Bibi was freed from prison by Pakistan’s Supreme Court because the witnesses against her weren’t credible. While she was in prison, two Pakistani politicians were assassinated simply for supporting her, and the Supreme Court judges were threatened similarly. Distressingly, after Bibi was freed, the nation’s Supreme Court kept her in Pakistan because they were weighing an appeal from Pakistan’s odious Tehreek-e-Labaaik party, a party dedicated solely to punishing blasphemy and establishing sharia law.

Now, however, according to the New York Times article below, Bibi has been freed and has arrived in Canada, staying in Ottawa where her two daughters have been since December.  As I reported before, although she appealed to several countries for asylum, including Britain, the USA, and the UK, Britain rejected her appeal on the grounds that it would stir up trouble among certain groups—and you know who those groups are. That’s absolutely shameful, and a blot on a country that’s supposed to harbor the threatened.

But good on Canada for accepting her! (I’d like to know what the US did.)

Remember, every country in the world in which blasphemy is a capital crime is a Muslim-majority country. Religion poisons everything, including freedom of worship and speech.

(From the NYT): Asia Bibi in 2010, at a prison in the city of Sheikhupura, near Lahore. Credit: Associated Press

45 thoughts on “Asia Bibi finally leaves Pakistan—for Canada”

  1. Congrats to Canuckistan! Next time the Blue Jays are in town, Im’a drag my ass to the ballpark and sing “O Canada” at the top of my lungs in its honor.

    Shame on the US of A on this one.

      1. It rejected Asia Bibi’s request for asylum — “on the grounds that it would stir up trouble,” according to the post above.

        If that’s not shameful, I don’t know what is.

          1. Shame on the UK, too. If the USA has a better excuse, I’d like to hear it.

          3. My misreading. In that case, I’ll provisionally shake off our national shame (unless and until it turns out the US did turn her down).

          4. Whether the US rejected asylum and if so, for what reason, is not something I can easily find.
            That part of the story would be very interesting to learn about. I am glad that she has left Pakistan. The pessimistic side of me predicts that she will not be safe there, either. Of course I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of Canada.
            I do know that if she were to relocate to the community I reside in, she would be welcome and perfectly safe.

        2. ” As I reported before, although she appealed to several countries for asylum, including Britain, the USA, and the UK, Britain rejected her appeal on the grounds that it would stir up trouble among certain groups—and you know who those groups are.”

          Thanks. However, it seems to imply that that is what Britain did, not the good old US of A. Maybe it needs a full stop in place of the comma.

          1. I haven’t seen any evidence that the British government rejected her application – or even that she made a formal application – for asylum in the UK. Nor, are we ever likely to. The British government, as a rule, does not comment on individual cases.

          2. Right, I have not seen evidence of an application being rejected either. However, this is what was written in a recent article:

            ‘The Foreign Office has been accused of allowing government asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK out of fear for the safety of UK consular staff.’

            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/13/asia-bibi-foreign-office-accused-of-allowing-pakistan-mob-to-dictate-asia-bibi-asylum-case

      1. Too bad because you’d think Christians would be all for helping a persecuted Christian (and not one that is just upset about what Starbucks puts on its coffee cups at Christmas).

          3. tRump probably didn’t care and would have let her come to the US, except it would upset his base. Can’t upset your base with an election on the horizon.

          4. Trump signed an executive order in 2017 containing the following:

            “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

            I think the whole “conservatives hate everyone who is not White” thing is more of a DNC/woke talking point than one based on reality.

            Before I read your comment and ones along the same line of reasoning, I had been thinking that Trump missed an opportunity here to do something that his base would enthusiastically support.

            Really, he would have won on two fronts. The conservatives who have been complaining that the US is not doing enough for Christians in the middle east would be happy, and the Progressives would be happy because they would likely assume that offering her asylum, as a “brown person”, would be upsetting to the conservatives.

          5. Trump doesn’t agree with many of our laws, especially ones having to do with immigration and asylum. He would only think about the law as an obstacle to doing the right thing or when it served his purpose. He’s spent his whole life breaking rules. Supposedly that is a big reason his base likes him.

            I doubt many would say that all conservatives hate everyone who is not white. That’s a strawman if ever there was one.

          6. Yup.

            And if it was leaked that he suggested suing Pakistan for even asking, it would be page 17 news for 2 minutes and then forgotten about.

      2. I thought Trump would have defended a Christian. It is true that Christians are a persecuted lot.

        1. He doesn’t care about Christians in the slightest, I’m afraid. And even recognising this woman as a Christian would require a degree of logic and mastery of emotional responses that are way beyond him.

          1. Yeah, he’d only care if his evangelical base told him they wanted this and that in granting it, it benefited him positively somehow.

  4. What the U.S. did was put a ban on several Muslim countries that are still in place. I don’t think Pakistan is on the list but it probably just as well be.

    2. I also suspect that the US didn’t want to get embroiled in an ugly controversy that would get certain people in an uproar.

      2. Ugly controversy ? Have you been to our southern boarder. Know about what Trump has been doing there the past two years.

  6. Thank goodness! At last, and well done Canada. I have yet to hear any UK politician even mention this case, let alone explain or apologize for the spineless refusal to grant asylum.

    1. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that the gut reaction of the FCO and the Immigration Service would have been that (a) she has no connection whatever to the UK; and (b) if we let her in, we will have to let in every Christian being persecuted anywhere in the world.

      Ignoble, but not necessarily irrational.

      1. I doubt if a formal application for asylum was ever made to the UK, and it wouldn’t be the Foreign Office’s decision if it were.

        However, asylum should never be based on whether a person is connected with the country, only on the basis of fear of persecution in their home country.

        Here are the grounds for eligibility for asylum

        https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

        https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

        The first link states that you cannot claim asylum in the UK until you have left your own country. Asia Bibi has only just left Pakistan, so now is the earliest time she can claim asylum. Bureaucracy in the UK being what it is, it can take six months for an asylum decision to be made. The UK government cannot have rejected her asylum application yet (if she has made one).

  11. This is great. I really hope that her life is whoppingly successful in Canada and in due time sends photos of her wonderful new life to those who accused her of blasphemy. Just for comparison and to say thanks for giving me the opportunity to enjoy a wonderful life. I really hope it sticks in their craw then.

  12. The (London) Times’ David Aaronovitch has an article today titled “Crushing dissent is a clear sign of weakness”. The same applies to so-called blasphemy.

  13. Canada’s immigration policy has been rather contentious, to say the least, lately, but occasions like this make me very proud to be an adopted Canadian.

  14. I agree this was the right thing to do – but I wonder if it will be “spun” in the next election here. A lot of people really want to get rid of the Liberals and Trudeau…
    (I’m no fan but I certainly don’t want another Conservative government, especially one like the Ford g. here in Ontario.)

Comments are closed.