A third secular blogger has been viciously hacked to death there: Ananta Bijoy Das has been added to the list of folk murdered for godlessness in Bangladesh, on top of Washiqur Rahman and Avijit Roy. If atheists want to claim status as a persecuted majority, there’s at least one country where that is literally and horribly true.
I ain’t afraid
What isn’t mentioned in that article is that my country, Sweden, is directly responsible for his death. Ananta Bijoy Das had been invited to participate in an event held by Swedish PEN on the third of May, but the Swedish embassy denied his visa application on the 22nd of April. He appealed the decision, but the appeal was still stuck in the gears of the our beloved bureaucracy machine at the time of his death. (Sorry for the Swedish link, but I haven’t seen it reported on any English-language site. I’m sure Google can do a good enough job translating from one Germanic language to another.)
Fuck Sweden.
Ah, here’s a text in English that explains in more detail.
No, it isn’t. The cowardly religious scum are directly responsible for his death. I don’t see how Sweden denying the visa (while a bad thing to do) is responsible for his death. The Islamists weren’t going to go easier on him if he had a chance to speak against them in Sweden.
I can’t reasonable demand it from anyone, but I sure hope atheists don’t abandon Bangladesh. How is that country supposed to change? Yet, who could expect people to risk their lives for this, either? It’s angering and sad, but also so incredibly silly, that I don’t know whether to laugh or not: Slaughtered for posting on a blog. It’s like a mid-air collision of modernity and mediveal times.
Um, persecuted majority?
For those who marvel at how wonderful Pope Francis is, I’ll remind folk of the comments he made after the Charlie Hebdo incident. Presumably, the same thing applies here. After all, if these good folk had not blogged things objectionable to religious lunatics, they would still be alive.
Pope Francis may be better than his predecessors but he’s still the head of a backward organization antithetical to secular principles which should not have international diplomatic standing of any sort.
I bet even now their are plenty of xian dominionists gazing at Bangladesh with envious eyes. The real difference between them and the murderers who killed Ananta Bijoy Das, Washiqur Rahman and Avijit Roy is not a fundamental difference of opinion on the acceptable responses to someone else’s godlessness, but rather simply that in Bangladesh such murderous fanatics have little to fear in the way of consequences for their actions.
It is important to remember that it is not only the muslim peoples of the world that harbour extremists who would happily kill atheists, it is merely that Islamic extremsits just happen to be the highest profile examples of that kind of violent religious bigotry at the moment. Take away the consequences at law, however, and I am certain that you would have no difficulty finding legions of people in the dear old US of A all too eager to respond to the words of atheists with violence and bloodshed.
Pink Jenkin @2:
Do you realize that your argument is basically saying that Sweden hacked Ananta Bijoy Das to death? I hope you can see how nonsensical that is.
The ones responsible for the murder are the ones who performed the murder.
Tony:
And they would probably have been patient enough to wait until he had returned from Sweden.
In practical terms, I’d like to hear – preferably from Bangladeshi secularists – what we in the west can do to help. I’m feeling pretty helpless about this.
I would agree with Pink Jenkin if the visa was being sought for asylum purposes. It wasn’t, it was just for the purposes of giving a talk at a conference. However, what muddles the issue is that there was a list out there that indicated that Ananta’s life was in danger, and the reasons for visa refusal was that there was a risk that Ananta would not leave. But the first list was from 2013 and the latest was from March, so no one could have known that a short May trip to Sweden would have prevented the murder.
I would certainly not say that Sweden is “directly responsible”, but neither would I categorically say, out of hand, that only murderers are “responsible” for someone’s death. Through action or inaction, intentionally or accidentally, you can facilitate deaths like this. I do not think Sweden holds much responsibility in this case, but had Ananta sought asylum due to the latest list and the February murder of someone else on that list, and been denied on the grounds that he was single and there was no pressing need, I could see placing more blame on Sweden though. But still far less blame than the actual murderers, and Bangladesh in general.
augustpamplona @ 7:
He is not better than his predecessors in any way whatsoever, and I wish to all hells and back that people would stop propagating this utter shite. All Francis has done is put on a pleasant little show for people, done some handy manipulation, while being exactly the same as all his predecessors.
***
What happened to Ananta Bijoy Das is absolutely terrible, and it’s clear that murderers feel free to kill with impunity, as the authorities don’t seem to be terribly interested in pursuing these people.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop #9:
If the Swedish government has no responsibility for denying him the visa, then the Bangladeshi government has no responsibility for failing to protect him, and the Muslim community has no responsibility for radicalizing his murderers. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
But yeah, if it’ll make you happier I admit that I should probably remove the adverb “directly”, which was probably caused by the frustration and anger caused by the knowledge that my government’s actions with certainty led to a good man being dead instead of alive today, rather than a detached analysis of the grammar of my second language. Yes, the murderers might have waited for him to get home. Sure. He would still be alive today. Hence my anger.
I thought I should bring some relevant information to the thread, but I’ll let you guys get back to your regularly scheduled programming of “What About Those American Christians” episode 433.
Pink Jenkin @ 13:
That’s uncalled for, even with your anger over the visa denial. It’s clear that Ananta Bijoy Das was a target, and none of us have any way of knowing if giving a talk in Sweden would have saved his life, even temporarily. Fundamental fanatics aren’t put off by something as simple as a different locale, and I think it’s a mistake to assume Ananta Bijoy Das would have been safe anywhere outside of Bangladesh.
Much like Moggie @ 10, I feel terribly helpless about this, and I would welcome suggestions on how to help. What isn’t helpful is yelling at everyone in the thread for not saying exactly what you wish them to say.
Your information was helpful and informative, Pink Jenkin.
This:
Not helpful, not accurate, not cool.
@Caine #14:
Yes, I just ran into this thread shouting invectives at everyone within eyeshot because they aren’t saying exactly what I want them to say.
Or right, I was actually “yelled at” for attaching the adverb “directly” to the adjective “responsible” when the actions of my government led to the death of an innocent man. Whatever. I can go for the lowest common denominator of ethics in the name of social harmony. Murder bad. I’m glad we had this talk.
It’s my responsibility as a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden to get angry when people whose salaries I pay cause other people who should be alive to be dead. Yeah, the murderous shitstains who stabbed him would probably have tried anyway, when he got back. That’s no reason for my government to make it easier for them.
I’m seldom helpful, accurate or cool. But at least I try to avoid tone trolling. Or maybe there’s some arcane Internet Atheist Code that determines what’s legitimate criticism of some genuine asshole and what’s tone trolling. I’ll be sure to check it out.
Press release from Swedish PEN. (English at the bottom.)
Pink Jenkin @ 16:
Okay, you want to be a major fucking asshole. Don’t look to me to stop it. Just what the fuck is it that you want those of us in this thread to do? I have no recourse when it comes to Swedish politics, and hollering “fucking godsdamn Sweden!” doesn’t seem to be much use.
Oh, and you weren’t tone-trolled, not even once. People pointing out flaws in your reasoning will happen here.
It’s not tone trolling that is the problem, it is actively accusing us of only caring about the evils of American Christians. In other words, Dear Muslima. But keep lashing out if you so desire. I totally agree with your desire to hold Sweden’s feet to the fire for this issue, but if you want to throw a fit because you were called out for what you admit was a misphrasing in your initial post, then have at it. Just so you know, though, it usually doesn’t end well. Other people who go into a full rage after getting their ego bruised here wind up doubling down, digging themselves into the earth, becoming part of a massive shitstorm that often results in a banhammer. So despite this place’s reputation for being rude and rough and tumble, there is an element of self-control in play too. Just saying.
Pink Jenkin, we’re not your enemies. I think we’re all more or less on the same page on this issue. It’s just that culpability is a scale, and some of us think that the Swedish government, while at fault in this case, is less culpable than the men with machetes. This is not something for us to have Deep Rifts over.
Pink Jenkin @13:
I’m glad you brought some relevant information, but what the hell does the rest of this even mean?
I’ve criticized religious extremists of all stripes. Yes, I live in the U.S., which means much of the criticism is aimed at Christians, because they’re the dominant religious group in this country, but I haven’t shied away from condemning extremism from other groups.
The point of my comment was to highlight the fact that you’re misplacing the blame for this horrible occurrence. In your zeal to blame the government of Sweden, you’ve shifted the blame from the person or persons who actually killed Ananta Bijoy Das to a government that did not kill Ananta Bijoy Das.
Denying a visa doesn’t kill someone. Hacking someone to death does. I shouldn’t have to spell this out.
I just don’t see what exactly comments like #8 contributes to this topic. I mean, a person has been murdered by some Muslim fanatics, and your first instinct is to jump in with some bullshit “What about the American Christians?!?!”-comment? Imagine the opposite if the blog post was about, say, an American Christian firebombing an abortion clinic or something. “Yeah, those American Christians are assholes, but what about the Bangladeshi Muslims?!?!” That would be fucked up and not helpful, accurate or cool. In my opinion, you know?
I would just prefer to focus on the actual topic instead of getting involved in pointless semantics arguments about adverbs or parochially America-focused whataboutisms.
@ Tony! The Queer Shoop #21:
Okay, we frikkin’ agree. If I really gave the impression that I was saying that the Swedish government is more responsible than the knife-wielding murderers, I apologize for my poor usage of the English language. But I can’t do anything about knife-wielding murderers in South Asia. I might be able to do something about the people whose salaries I pay. Hence my focus on the Swedish side of this incident.
Pink Jenkin, #16
This is bullshit.
Pink Jenkin:
No, that wouldn’t be helpful, you’re right. As for Gregory Greenwood, he’s British, not American. Like a lot of people though, he finds the religious fanaticism in the States to be frightening, and rather than saying “what about”, he’s saying that those christians are envious of murders committed by muslims, and would like to do the very same thing. And if they did, it’s more than possible they would get away with it, too.
All that said, it was one post. Well, two – Augustpamplona brought catholics into it @ 7. So, people should have stayed on the subject – that I agree with wholeheartedly, and I get really annoyed when important discussion get sidelined. So rather than talk about that any more, let’s discuss the situation in Bangladesh, and the obstacles provided by the Swedish government, okay?
Pink Jenkin:
I wouldn’t say that it would be “fucked up” (depending on the specific comment), but I do agree that it is jarring and possibly insensitive. So good point.
(In fairness, Gregory Greenwood most likely brought that up to pre-emptively defuse “Look at those evil Muslims” sentiments, but since there is no such comment yet, it looks like a bizarre attempt to shift focus to America, which I understand is problematic)
Pink Jenkin, if I could upvote your #22, I would. Thank you for that post.
Saad @ #24,
How so? The denial of his visa was unwarranted and did lead to his murder. Unintended consequence, but still consequence.
@Saad #24:
In strictly, I dunno, mechanical terms, it’s certainly not bullshit. I very much doubt his attackers would have followed him to Sweden. He would still be in Sweden now. His attackers would be in Bangladesh. Hence, preventing him from going to Sweden caused him to be dead now.
But in moral terms, no of course we can’t blame the embassy for his death.
But. Not actively hindering the free movement of free-thinkers and dissidents, whether it’s for asylum or to spread ideas and gather support, should in my opinion be a fundamental goal of a modern, secular, liberal government. When you prevent people from exercising the freedom to travel, the freedom to talk, the freedom to meet and think and discuss, you are aiding the forces of darkness and ignorance. The embassy’s decision was immoral, even if Ananta Bijoy Das had not been murdered. That he did get murdered only shone a light on the absurdity of the situation. The decision, or more accurately the culture and system behind the decision, is part of the reason people fear to speak their minds and think freely in large parts of the world today.
That my fellow citizens feel righteous fury about this particular decision and this particular effect of that decision is not something that should be discouraged, if it in any way encourages us and our government to think about what kind of world we want the actions of our public officials to contribute to.
Holding my government responsible for Ananta Bijoy Das’s death is not removing the responsibility from the actual murderers, it’s forcing us to look at what kind of global society we, as individuals and as members of a national community, create.
Rococo Gecko: How was the denial of the visa unwarranted? And how did it lead to his murder?
The visa would have meant he was at a conference in Sweden now instead of in Bangladesh. He would have returned a week from now. Assuming that he would be fine and dandy if he had only gotten a chance to go to that conference is just an assumption.
What if he had gotten the visa, came back a week from now, and was murdered still? Would Sweden be to blame for not giving him an extra week? Are other nations not to blame for not pro-actively giving Ananta asylum? Are Ananta’s friends not to blame for not giving him a place to hide? Are Ananta’s neighbors not to blame for not defending him or not spotting the would-be killers and giving out a warning? Is his work at fault, since he was attacked on his way to work?
All this to say, I think there is a fair amount of hindsight bias going on here.
Pink Jenkin, #28
Thanks for that explanation. I can’t disagree with that.
I’m sorry for my shitty post #24. I was angry. Your post didn’t deserve a dismissal like that.
But there’s something about when you put it like that that doesn’t sit well with me. Sweden not allowing him to visit did not cause him to be dead now. He didn’t die by a tornado or a flood. Men made careful plans, woke up one day and tracked him down and hit his head with sharp objects until he died. Sweden not allowing him entry did not lead to that. Also, the Bangladeshi government knew bloggers are on hit lists. I’ll bet you they also know where some of these terrorists are. They certainly know which madarsas are safe haven for people like these. The major preventative responsibility lies with them. The direct responsibility lies with the murdering religious thugs. But I agree with you to the extent that denying him entry when they knew the climate in Bangladesh with respect to visible secular people was a bad choice. I disagree with how it comes across the way you worded it the first couple of times including that Sweden’s action “led to the death of an innocent man”.
Pink Jenkin:
*Applause*
Now this statement, I can completely support without quibble or reservation. Superb. I had never even thought of things like that.
@Saad #30:
No problem, I could write a book on writing stupid shit when angry — and your shit wasn’t even stupid, I did phrase what I wanted to say badly.
I think me being so harsh on my country is largely caused by the inflated sense of national pride that seeps through my countrymen and -women: We are the Good Ones, we are rational, we alone are progressive and secular and will have no part in the fanaticism and stupidity that plagues the rest of the planet. We are smug as fuck, every once in a while chuckling over the ignorant hordes that run such countries as — pfeh — the United States.
But then our stupid Ministry for Foreign Affairs denies a visa to a free-thinking blogger for no reason, and then he ends up dead in Bangladesh instead of having a good time in Sweden. Is it said ministry’s fault? Not morally, no. But fucking hell. If Sweden is such a wonderful fucking country, couldn’t we at least just let him visit us without putting up a big, pointless wall? To whose benefit? What interests are we trying to protect? What system caused this shit to happen? The two main systems causing this event is, as far as I understand, Bangladeshi politics and Bangladeshi Islam, but I’m neither from Bangladesh nor a Muslim. So Sweden takes the brunt of my anger and sadness, moral culpability be damned.
Denying a visa to a refugee who is then murdered – the country refusing to give them a visa is not taking ANY responsibility from the murdered, but is also responsible (not a zero sum game)
In this case, country refusing visa, while ridiculous for refusing it, holds as much responsibility for a murder as a clerk at an office who engaged a man in a conversation just long enough that he stepped out of the building in front of a speeding car. He was going to an event and was not (as far as I know) planning to stay there.
My condolences to Ananta Bijoy Das’ family and friends. If there are any atheist readers from Bangladesh hanging around here, I hope you can stay safe.
Yeah, sorry, I started writing my comment some time ago and didn’t refresh before posting.
I apologize. That comparison in my #33 is horrible, since it implies similarity between planned murder and an accident.
Just try and ignore the whole thing.
@Caine #12 One think Pope Frank is better at is PR. Unfortunately I agree on every other point, he’s just as scummy as the rest of them.
So saddened to hear of this latest murder, though I wish it was a surprise. Over here in my comfortable secular life I have no idea on how to help though, so I’ll keep reading and at least not just pretending it doesn’t exist. Maybe I’ll learn something?
Err, that should read ‘One thing’. Clearly it’s one of those mornings when I need double-caffeine.
In regard to the back and forth about post #8, I think many are missing Gregory Greenwood’s real point (or maybe I’m just reading my own opinion into it). He wasn’t trying to shift the focus from A to B, he was saying many people’s assumption that A and B are of a different nature is incorrect. You sometimes hear the real problem with Islam is that it’s a young religion, relatively, look at how much violence was done in terms of wars, crusades and witch burning was being done by Christianity 700 years ago. Give the Muslims time, they’ll mellow out in a few generations, they’re no different than the nice Jesus worshippers down the street. Well, as Greenwood points out, that’s half right — they’re no different. But it’s not an issue of time, it’s an issue of political power. Secular society is what defanged the church, and with enough political power Christianity will return to being what Islam is in the places where it reigns supreme.
“If atheists want to claim status as a persecuted majority, there’s at least one country where that is literally and horribly true.”
So sick of this shit. Just because you have it good, PZ, doesn’t mean it hasn’t wrecked the lives of some of us. Fuck you.
@ Pink Jenkin
Late to the party, but; had he been seeking asylum in Sweden and been denied, I would totally agree with you. But under the circumstances I do not, since all that would have happened had his visa been granted is that he would have gone to Sweden, given the talk, returned to Bangladesh, and then been killed. It would have delayed his death, but in all probability would not have stopped it.
Totally agree with this. Your politicians and elected officials act in your name and you should get angry when they fuck up. I feel the same way about the UK. But in this instance, under these specific circumstances, I don’t think they could have saved him. At best, they could have delayed it.
@Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened #40:
Those who defend the actions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in this case find themselves in a bit of a bizarre situation, logically.
The reason the embassy rejected his visa application was that they feared he would attempt to stay in the Schengen Area, because he would want to not be brutally murdered in Bangladesh. So if this reason had any validity, the embassy did in fact cause his death, because he would stay in the Schengen Area, where the chances of him being murdered would be significantly smaller. He would not only be alive today, but very possibly for decades more.
But if the embassy did not cause his death in this fashion, then their reason for rejecting his visa application had no validity! Because he would return to Bangladesh, in full compliance with their little rules. See where I’m going with this?
This is of course all in addition to the issues raised by saying “the purpose of your trip is not urgent enough to grant you visa” to people who put their lives on the line to fight for human rights, or by implication putting all those people in a category unfit to ever visit the Schengen Area, since, well, they might want to stay!
That attitude is fucked up. That attitude kills. That attitude enables knife-wielding fanatics to murder with impunity. And as a citizen of Sweden I don’t want my country to be run by people with that attitude.
I am sorry if my @ 8 functioned as a derail, but I have been encountering a lot of bigoted ‘look at those fanatical muslim animals’ sentiment recently with regard to just this sort of thing – much of it from self-declared ‘enlightened’ atheists – with all too many people acting as if it is inconceiveable that this kind of violence could occur in the notionally ‘civilised’ world. Perhaps that has left me on something of a hair trigger with regard to this.
Again, my apologies.
Ugh, “chances of him being murdered”? English fail. Risks is of course the correct word.
@Gregory Greenwood #42:
Yah, I get where you’re coming from, no sweat. But it’s a bit like preaching to the choir, innit? I mean, I haven’t been here that much, but I don’t really think “unreasonable fondness for American Christians” is a sin commonly found among PZ Myers’s fans/acolytes/groupies/minions.
Pink Jenkin: Well, if you compare the fondness of Christians to the fondness of Muslims, and control for the possibility of atheists who aren’t necessarily part of the Horde Hivemind Groupthink Echochamber, you might be surprised….
PJ,
In other words, the embassy officials reacted as they should to a temporary visa application, where there is a large potential of the terms of the temporary visa being ignored, by the person overstaying?
If he needed asylum, he should have filed for that, not a temporary visa.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #46:
Rest assured that he has been sufficiently punished for his improper paperwork.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #46:
On that topic, are you then saying that all human rights activists who live under death threats in their home countries should be denied temporary visas to the Schengen Area? Yes or no?
Nerd of Redhead,
I didn’t even know about this when I was first commenting.
If he was afraid of not getting approval for asylum, so he tried to play the system… I’m fully on his side. When the system would rather see you dead, I’d rather say “fuck the system”.
@ Pink Jenkin #41
Right. So if I follow you correctly, He applied for a visa and they, knowing that his life was under threat “back home”, denied it on the grounds that he might want to defy the conditions of his visa and stay in Sweden due to that threat. Because they denied it, he did not have the opportunity to stay in Sweden, and was killed.
I see your logic, and assuming that is the case then I would agree with you. The problem is, we have no way of knowing whether he would have taken the opportunity to stay in Sweden or not. Which, ironically enough, is a point against both your argument and your government’s. I can’t help thinking that, if he wanted to stay in Sweden, he would have applied for asylum.
I do disagree with your government’s decision, but I disagree on the grounds that I am sick of Western European countries assuming that everyone from a poorer country wants to come here and live off benefits. Aside from the fact it’s demonstrably untrue, at least in the case of the UK, it’s led to some very nasty xenophobic paranoia, and I see your government’s decision as a symptom of that.
By the way, “chances” worked fine. In the context you were using it, “chances”, “risk” and “probability” are all interchangeable, at least for the purposes of everyday conversation.
Actually, you know what, I need to add to my above. I’ve thought about the fact that we can’t possibly know whether he would have gone back or not. That’s actually a reason to grant the visa. Either he would have gone home, in which case they had no reason not to grant the visa, or he genuinely was so worried for his personal safety that he would have stayed. In which case, put in a proper asylum claim, let him stay while that’s processed, and then make a decision based on the evidence (which surely, in any sane world, would have come up in favour of him staying).
@Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened #50 & 51: (I swear I’m doing this wrong, but it makes sense in my head.)
Ha! Sane world indeed. Wake me up when you find one, I’d like a condo with good parking space there. There are too many examples for me to count without feeling sick of my beloved homeland denying asylum to political undesirables and kicking them back to certain imprisonment, torture and execution. Sweden wipes its lily-white ass with the UN Convention against Torture, it claims homosexual asylum seekers are lying about their orientation, etcetera etcetera. What makes you think they would grant asylum to some Bangladeshi blogger who is “only” living under a murder threat from fanatical Muslims rather than the government itself? (As far as I know, I haven’t looked deeply into his situation or the situation in Bangladesh in general.)
If we for the moment assume that Ananta Bijoy Das wanted political asylum — which we for obvious reasons will never know for certain, but it’s one of two at least somewhat likely possibilities as I see it — applying for a temporary visa rather than asylum was the rational thing to do, if he had spent two minutes doing research into Sweden’s treatment of political asylum seekers. I would have done the same thing. Well, actually, I would never be in his situation because I am not brave, but if I was I would have done what he did.
So maybe the embassy did things by the book, while Ananta Bijoy Das did not. And as we all know, you sure wouldn’t want to be remembered by history as a person who did not do things by the book.
Oh right, I forgot to mention the most important thing.
You can’t apply for asylum on an embassy.
You have to get to Sweden, the geographical location, before filing the proper paperwork.
So there’s that. How do the people who say he should have applied for asylum suggest he get to Sweden? Why, he would need a temporary vi-
Oh.
Tiresome hairshirtted one. What I am saying is that your embassy should apply the same standards to his application as anybody else. And he should obey the conditions of his visa. I’m not looking at the death threats. I’m looking at the process.
Why don’t you show us with evidence the process. I don’t take your word for anything.
You are so focused on the death threats that you lose track off everything else.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #54:
Legalistic zombie shit-for-brains. I assume you think Chiune Sugihara should have followed the rules more properly as well, right? He shouldn’t have written those fucking visas. But here in the real world, only sociopathic robots live without empathy or common sense.
“Show us with evidence the process”? What the fuck does that even mean? What, exactly, do you suggest Ananta Bijoy Das should have done differently? Show with me evidence the process, fuckface.
Oh right, you did say what you wanted him to do. “File for asylum”. In Bangladesh. Because that’s how it works.
I’d call you a moron but it’d be an insult to low-intelligence individuals with any kind of interest in their fellow human beings.
Nerd,
What are you doing?
Seconded.
Nerd, what are you doing?
Nerd is being true to Nerd form; he’s being an insufferable asshole. I’m not sure why people here put up with his shit but I’ve been reading it for years and continue to be dismayed at how his presence continues to be tolerated.
Anyhow, Pink Jenkin, you said you aren’t here much. Don’t pay attention to Nerd, if possible. I rarely post here but I’ve been here for many years and Nerd’s just like that. And for what it’s worth, I’ve really appreciated your content here.
I kind of like it when people are assholes, it allows me to use insults without feeling guilty. My wife says I need to work on that. :c
Also, not sure why I’ve gendered Nerd; it might be because I’ve seen them referenced as male somewhere along the line and it stuck or it might be my own interpretation. Apologies, if applicable, to Nerd for gendering them.
To return to the original topic, I understand why these things happen; it’s a result of several overlapping shitty realities that makes a world without borders impossible. I’m not naïve. Well, not that naïve.
At the same time, denying temporary visas to people who are threatened in their home countries is a really fucking dangerous step to take. It’s in both Sweden’s and Bangladesh’s interest that people like Ananta Bijoy Das are allowed to travel here to meet, discuss and foster an intellectual and social climate where the freedom of individuals is put before religious dogma and barbarism.
So from an individual point of view, if Ananta Bijoy Das wanted to escape Bangladesh (which, I remind you, we have no idea of knowing) applying for a temporary visa was a rational thing to do. What’s the option? Hauling his ass into a cardboard box going across the Mediterranean, like the thousands of people dying in an attempt to reach Europe? If they could just walz into the Swedish embassy and ask for asylum I think it’s pretty fucking obvious they wouldn’t put their own and their children’s lives at risk. That’s not the world we live in.
From a moral point of view, denying that temporary visa was a bad thing to do. Even if the reason given was valid, that he would attempt to stay in the Schengen Area, any decent moral instinct should decide that this would not be an event to be avoided at any cost. I know there are complexities and implications involved that makes the job the embassy has to do far more difficult than I make it out to be, but I can’t get away from that gut feeling. Maybe I am naïve.
From a societal point of view, a system — sorry, process — that denies temporary visas to people in Ananta Bijoy Das’s situation is detrimental to pretty much every person, country and value that isn’t polluted by Islamist fanaticism. I really hope I don’t have to justify that statement further.
So who the hell benefits from this decision, this process? Whose interests are we protecting? “Them’s the rules” is not a good enough reason. People make rules, and good rules benefit people. Bad rules should be challenged, and the people upholding them for no reason should not be excused when their actions cause harm. Those people can go stick their noses into Adenoid Hynkel’s asshole and feed off his fumes.
Nerd @ 54:
That is exactly what they did not do, FFS. Ananta Bijoy Das had been invited to give a talk – a perfectly legitimate reason to have, and there should have been no problems at all with his visa. Someone in the bureaucracy decided that there might be a slim chance that he might not want to go back home, so the visa was denied. This is not fair or standard application by any fucking means. Whether or not anyone thought he might apply for asylum later, there was zero reason to deny entry to give the talk, full stop.
Since you don’t want to seem to fucking understand this, imagine PZ’s recent trip to Spain being denied because someone had read about Mabus’s death threats, and decided that “weeeelll, maybe he won’t want to go home. We sure as shit don’t want him here! Denied!”
You keep going on about rules – well, the bureaucrats weren’t playing by rules. Surely even you can see this is so.
Pink Jenkin:
It is perfectly to do so here. Hopefully we won’t be considered enablers.
Chosen Name:
I’m 95% sure that Nerd has gendered themselves as male on several occasions.
Caine:
I believe I remember that their stated rationale was that he was a risk because he was single without kids. Which, thinking about it, is utter bullshit. Either they were considering that he did need asylum from acknowledged dangers and factored that in without stating it, or it was based on his country of origin (i.e. there may have been some serious racism involved).
Questioning the thought process of PJ.
PJ, do you believe Sweden should give an entry visa to anybody who claims they have received death threats without further investigation as to who and why?
This seems to be what you are claiming is the moral ground. But normal protocols, which you fail to evidence, most likely require investigations as to why the death threats have been received, and the likelihood of them being acted upon.
Or, are you only worried about atheists in highly Moslem countries?
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #65:
I’m surprised someone as unintelligent as you can even manage to type, and that you’ve managed to get Internet access in whatever troglodyte-occupied cave system spawned you. The only thing more broken than your moral compass is your ability to process information, so let me attempt to enlighten you.
I believe Sweden should grant temporary visas to foreign authors who have been invited by human rights organizations to participate in seminars meant to nurture and protect free speech and free thinking around the world, yes. That is apparently too complicated a concept for your chickpea-sized brain to process, but I remain fully confident that we can uphold such a liberal policy without throwing all of Scandinavia into anarchy.
The above has nothing to do with death threats. The death threats do not even fucking factor into it. But then we come to your suggestion that “[i]f he needed asylum, he should have filed for that, not a temporary visa.”
So tell me, O dragger of knuckles, how the fuck do you suggest he should have done that?
Oh, and I would bother saying something funny about your little Islamophobia-thingy if I believed enough thought had gone into it to warrant humor. But for all I know, a sudden movement of the bilious liquids keeping your body alive could have caused the muscle spasm behind your comment, so I won’t hold it against you.
Pink Jenkin # 52
I’m kind of surprised your link didn’t go to Raoul Wallenberg, since we’re talking about the Swedish foreign office and all.
Article in English.
Nerd of Redhead: Still a cowardly shitweasel.
Pink Jenkin
What are you doing?
To set the record straight, nobody should be killed for not believing in imaginary things, no matter how culturally strong those beliefs are. Those who killed Ananta Bijoy Das, and those who encouraged the killers are at fault. His death was a tragedy.
Assigning any partial blame beyond that point is difficult. In order to do so properly, you need to know things, for example, the checklist used for granting temporary visas for such conferences. Usually the visa has to be worked at both ends. The answer is no until all the items can be checked off properly, or explained.
PJ, since you seem to obtuse to do your own research, I had to get time to give you a lesson in how things are done. A good primer on visas are found in the Wiki article on Visa (document).
From the Wiki article, culled from reasons why a visa can be denied:
has committed fraud, deception or misrepresentation in his or her current application as well as in a previous application
has obtained a criminal record, has been arrested, or has criminal charges pending
is considered to be a threat to national security
fails to provide sufficient evidence/documents to prove eligibility for the visa sought after
does not have a legitimate reason for the journey
has no visible means of sustenance
does not have travel arrangements (i.e. transport and lodging) in the destination country
fails to demonstrate intent to return (for non-immigrants)
fails to provide sufficient evidence/documents to prove eligibility for the visa sought after
I recall this from years ago, when the head of the research group where I was a post-doc was also the chairman of an ACS division. They were going to give the division award that year to a Japanese researcher. The chairman had to supply to the State Department, evidence of a round-trip plane ticket, hotel reservations, the dates of the meeting, and that the researcher was getting the award. Then the State Department did their background checks, and the visa approved, but not before the other documentation was in place.
A Chinese colleague was one of the first to leave when China opened its doors, and left to do doctoral studies at a Midwest university. But the university had to provide documentation of the offer and support. A one-way ticket for the colleague and his wife was sufficient due to the length of time for the studies. Background checks were done of course. Getting his exit visa from China was far, far harder, but he did it.
Some of this documentation should have been supplied by the Conference organizers. Besides documenting the invitation and confirming the dates, there may be other things they need do, not obvious to those not used to dealing with such situations. Since the conferences often pays travel expenses for speakers, especially from third world countries, they are most likely responsible for the airline tickets and hotel reservations, and providing such documentation to the State department/embassy. What seems like minor details to some folks, like a one-way airline ticket instead of a return ticket, would be a red flag to the embassy that expects a return ticket in order to show intent to return.
I work in a highly regulated industry, where the Quality Assurance department must sign off to get product out the door. QA just checks the paper work of others, to make sure all the operational protocols were followed, and that the product meets the required specifications. It is up to production and Quality Control to make sure their paperwork is in order so QA can give the material its stamp of approval. If there is a problem, it isn’t QAs fault if they are following their protocols, but rather with the department where the deviations occurred. The originating department is the one that must fix things. QA is only a review. I also have training in root cause analysis.
Using normal quality systems, which is how I see it, the fault is with those who didn’t supply your equivalent of our State Department the proper documents is at fault. The embassy is reviewing supplied documentation, and is not responsible for incomplete/faulty applications. Only if the paperwork/documents were all lined up, complete, and gave no contraindications, and the embassy decides to say no despite of the proper paperwork, can they be blamed.
You, of course, can continue to wail about your embassy being the cause in your overly simplistic world view. But that is likely is avoiding where the real problem was. It could have been people with the best of intentions who didn’t understand the system enough to all them to use it properly in order to get the visa approved.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #70:
Šarrat Uruk, grant me fortitude — or at least a straight face. This is simply too funny. You disappear for days, and in your triumphant return, in which you presume to “give [me] a lesson in how things are done”, your amazing “research” consists of going to the Wikipedia article “Visa (document)”. Haha. Oh wow. You can’t make this shit up.
Okay, let’s for the moment treat you like a mentally functioning adult, if only to dispel any notion that your crypto-racist bullshit contains any kind of validity.
Have you actually read anything about this case? I highly doubt it, because if you had you would have found out that plane tickets and hotel room were already booked. So that gets rid of the first … reason you put in bold. Good work so far.
And if you were actually capable of doing any kind of research, you would know that the stated reasons for denying him the visa was: “You belong to a category of applicants where there is always a risk involved when granting a visa that you will not leave Schengen area after the visit. Furthermore, the purpose of your trip is not urgent enough to grant you visa.”
So let’s break that down. As we see, it has absolutely nothing with the desperate handwaving reasons you clumsily type about.
a) Dissidents and free-thinkers from shitty countries like Bangladesh will always belong to the “category of applicants where there is always a risk involved when granting a visa that [they] will not leave Schengen area after the visit”. In essence, what they are saying is: “You’re brown, you come from a third-world-country, you think for yourself, we have no interest in having you here.” Are you really so stupid that you believe this would have happened if Ananta Bijoy Das was, say, Canadian?
b) “Furthermore, the purpose of your trip is not urgent enough to grant you visa.” In other words, fighting for human rights in some backward corner of the globe filled with brown-skinned people is “not urgent”.
I would choose my fights more wisely if I was anything even resembling you.
Right, but now we come to the interesting thing you said:
Now, again, I ask you: How? And don’t try to escape the question this time, shitweasel.
Pink Jenkin writes:
Quoting Pink Jenkin only because I am interested in seeing the answer to this question.