Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Lucia Looks like Key is bowing to the popular mood

John Key wouldn't let Panah stay either.
Mr Key was asked on TV One's Breakfast programme this morning about the Government's handling of the case.

"You obviously have to balance the humanitarian aspects of this case - no one wants to see someone starving to death on our watch," he said.

However, Mr Key said New Zealand had to be careful not to set a precedent.

The country took 750 United Nations sanctioned refugees a year and about 200 people a year arrived in the country seeking that status. Mr Panah was one of them but authorities have rejected his application.

"Looking at the facts of the case, and I only have some information ... there's certainly quite a lot of inconsistencies about what he's been saying," Mr Key said.

"I have concerns about New Zealand being targeted as a soft touch ... The problem you have is (if you let him stay) there are hundreds that turn up if that word gets around.
I find this very disturbing. There are many people worried about "the others" that could come, that could "pretend" to convert to Christianity. What is the problem with treating each individual as an individual rather than representing the imagined "others"?

If people are worried that refugees might convert to Christianity, then maybe an Inquisition type office is in order. It worked in Spain in the 1500s.

Related Link: Nats wouldn't let Panah stay either - Key

17 comment(s):

fugley said...

More likely Key is taking a principled stand on what we know about this man. Panah is a liar, a thief and a criminal; he has no place in NZ and is not welcome here.

Was he a christian when he left Iran? No, therefore he did not leave Iran to escape persecution.

Where did he become a christian? Korea, and yet rather than stay in the bosom of his new church, he chose to enter NZ illegally.

Has he been back to Iarn since he became a christian? Yes, and yet he was not arrested, and was allowed to leave again, freely.

He is, quite simply, someone who has chosen to live in NZ, but rather than wait his turn to be processed as other would be immigrants, he chose to put his own selfish needs ahead of all others.

I say send him back to Iran, if he is executed, we will know he was telling the truth; however, if he is not arrested, not prosecuted, not executed, will will see him revealled for the liar I believe him to be.

fugley said...

see for more on this queue jumper.

ZenTiger said...

say send him back to Iran, if he is executed, we will know he was telling the truth; however, if he is not arrested, not prosecuted, not executed, will will see him revealled (sic) for the liar I believe him to be.

The Fugley school of logic? I suppose if he weighs the same as a duck you'd burn him?

fugley said...

zen, it was a tounh=gue in cheek comment. As I already noted, he HAS been back to Iran since becoming a christian, so why should things be any different this time?

Funnily enough, 98% of Iran is apparently moslem, with the other 2% being Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i. Why aren't they all seeking refugee status?

Ali panha is simply queue jumper, nothing else, and should be sent to the back of the queue.

dad4justice said...

fugley the nutbar promotes his blog snog on a conservative blog ?
What psych ward is he in ?

ZenTiger said...

And next you'll be maintaining that there is no such thing as persecution of Christians in Iran I suppose?

When he converted to Christianity is irrelevant. That's like suggesting a gay person can only 'come out' before age 21, or that if they 'came out' in NZ they should still be sent to Iran wearing those silly leopard g-strings that seem so popular at Mardi-Gras events.

The fact is that if he is a Christian and he returns to Iran he could face persecution.

From what I gather, he isn't a queue jumper as such, but an applicant where the judgment committee thinks that if he is sent back, and is tortured, that they would be very surprised and possibly even be forced to admit that they were surprised.

It's hard to judge the full merits of his case when we know so little. However, I don't accept that Iran is 'definitely' a safe place for him, and that if he's keen enough to starve himself to confirm his fears, he deserves a fair hearing. Hopefully, that's what he will receive behind closed doors.

fugley said...

zen, he HAD his fair hearing and his application was rejected. He lied, his story was contunually changed and hed no cosnsistency at all.

It was after his application, processed under the normal rules, was rejected, that he decided to "starve himself".

My one regret is that he failed.

ZenTiger said...

FAIR Hearing? Oh, so you were present were you? I heard kangaroos were spotted in the vicinity. You do the math.

So, what did you think of my counter arguments anyway?? Is it all right to 'go gay' outside of the warranty period?

Is it dangerous in Iran for Christians or is that up there with the Tooth Fairy?

Good to see you have a small list of regrets, BTW. Just a very weird one to have for such a short list.

fugley said...

He had his hearing under our laws. Don't like, then you have 2 choices - STFU, or try to get the law changed, but there is no point in whingeing at the umpire.

As there are christians in Iran, it doesn't seem all that dangerous for them. And, as I have pointed out several times now, his own actions show it IS safe for christians in Iran as he has been back there since his "conversion".

Stop being a clot and read the facts as presented about this lying, thieving criminal.

ZenTiger said...

That's hilarious Fugley. STFU? So what meaningless platitudes were you sprouting on the necessity for free speech on your blog?

In our country there are several avenues open to us. Not the two narrow choices you offer. There's also the old 'change public opinion' by speaking out option that Labour want to shut down.

I also think you need to put more thought into the difference between visiting a place 'on holiday' and being deported back to it, in terms of the kind of attention one might receive.

Your statement suggesting Iran is safe for Christians shows your naivety:

There are hundreds of stories like these:

Reza (Amir) Montazemi, 35 and his wife Fereshteh Dibaj, 28, were released on bail yesterday morning in Mashdad, northeast Iran, after nine days in custody. They were reunited with their six-year-old daughter, Christine, in the afternoon.

Formal charges have still not been pressed against the couple, but the authorities have indicated that their arrest and detention was in connection with their Christian faith and activities. The couple lead a church in Mashdad.

The couple were arrested around 7am local time on Tuesday 26 September 2006, when their apartment was raided by Iranian secret police. Several items were confiscated, including computers and Christian literature.

Fereshteh was raised in a Christian home. She is the youngest daughter of Rev. Mehdi Dibaj, who was killed in 1994. He had spent over nine years in prison on charges of apostasy. He was sentenced to execution, but was released following international pressure. Six months later he was abducted and assassinated on his way to attend Fereshteh’s birthday party. Amir adopted the Christian faith in his twenties.

fugley said...

Well, you may be right tat there are more than 2 choices, although I don't really see much difference between your change public opinion and my get the law changed as one can lead to the other.

As your couple have been released on bail, it would appear unlikely they will be charged with anything as serious as a capital crime. And I do recall similar arrests of muslims in non muslim countries.

Deport the queue jumper and let god take care of him. What better witness to his faith could he make? What, you mean he doesn't want to die and meet his maker?

ZenTiger said...

Fugley - re the couple released on bail ... did you not read the part in there about 9 years jail followed by assassination to the father? What part of 'dangerous' do you not understand?

And you sum up your understanding of Christian Theology as a death/suicide cult? It may be another attempt at humour, but it hardly advances your argument. Perhaps the best witness to his faith would be for NZ'ers to show a deep generosity of spirit, and open our arms a little wider rather than be a little colder.

We don't need to give him a free pass, but he could be set the task of earning a place here.

What would you be prepared to do if you needed to convince the authorities your daughter's lives would be in danger if they were deported to, say Afghanistan?

fugley said...

Assasination is such a loaded word, but no doubt that is why you chose it.

Why not call it murder? Do we not have murders in NZ? Are christians in NZ somehow safe from murder.

As for my daughters being deported to afghanistan, since we are not afghanis that is going to happen. So what was the point you were trying to make?

I am a legal resident of NZ, having come here through the correct channels. As this man was NOT fleeing persecution (he came here from South Korea) he is simply a queue jumper. Why should he get preference over and above those wishing to immigrate through the appropriate channels?

ZenTiger said...

Assassination is such a loaded word, but no doubt that is why you chose it.

Well, actually, it was because that was the term used in the news source I quoted above.

fugley said...

Fair enough.

Leaving that to one side, I would like to know why you think a queue jumper should be given preference over those who have applied for immigration through the proper channels. Remember, even though he may face persecution in Iran, he did not leave Iran under threat of persecution. He was not a christian at the time he left Iran.

ZenTiger said...

A Chinese women visited Australia back in 1999.

Her visa was expiring so the Australian Government wanted to send her back to China. However, at 8 months pregnant, she feared the baby girl would be forcibly aborted according to China's one child policy.

The request was denied and the officials were confident the baby would be safe (given the term was now at 8.5 months).

After all, many girls are born in China, just as there are many Christians in Iran.

We learned later the baby was aborted at 8.5 months.

Your point about *when* some-one becomes pregnant, or *when* they become Christian has no meaning to me. It is irrelevant. They are, and they are in danger.

And this guy is not a queue jumper as far as I know. He applied under the refugee program, and has been turned down. I'm just worried those considering his application have the same default attitude as you obviously do, and the same attitude as the Australian immigration authorities showed to a pregnant mother.

Unknown said...

An Iraqi couple pleaded for sanctuary in Australia. She told a sad and sorry tale of persecution because she was the wrong sect for the part of Iraq in which she lived. Also, she had married an Iranian of the same sect.

Turns out that was only part of the story.

The couple had left Iraq and settled in Iran, where they lived without fear of persecution.

So, why did they attempt to gain assylum in Australia? because the only work her husband could get in Iran was selling home made food on the streets.

See, we can all come up with a story, but that doesn't change tha fact that your man entered NZ illegally and is not prepared to take his palce in the immigration queue.

I don't even know why we are holding him; just because Iran requires him to sign a form doesn't mean we can't chuck him on a palne and let him face the paperwork on his return.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.