I generally try to find other sources for items reported by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, because I’m leery of his allies and fans. But I could find only Spanish news sources for this one, so I’m going with it, hoping English language sources will pick it up later. I’m going with it because it’s horrendous.
“Spain to Deport Pakistani Refugee for Criticizing Islam,” by Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute, June 6, 2014:
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.
But then he made a movie about the prophet and the prophet’s religion…
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.”
And so Spain decided that made him a threat to Spanish security, so they decided to revoke his refugee status.
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.”
Under certain narrow conditions, yes…
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.”
Jesus god – the right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that have the character of blasphemy?? It doesn’t?!
If that’s true we’re all in big big trouble.
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.”
Oh, Spencer must have missed that sentence, because he says the opposite in his intro at the top:
Imran Firasat’s criticism of Islam doesn’t pose a danger to the security of Spain. What poses a danger to the security of Spain is the way some Muslims may react to Imran Firasat’s criticism of Islam. But rather than confront them, Spanish authorities are sending Imran Firasat back to certain death in Pakistan.
But apparently they’re not, so…Spencer got that part wrong. It’s an important part. Sending him to Sweden (say) is different from sending him to Pakistan.
It’s still a bad outcome though. Bad Spain; do better.