Evangelist Martyred in Karachi

Martyred Evangelist Jameel Saawan

On Wednesday November 16th an evangelist was shot dead outside his shop. There was no attempt at robbery or mugging, and he had no known enemies other than Islamisists who had threatened his life in the past.

A young man approached him early in the morning as he and an assistant were opening up his cosmetics shop and shot him in the neck, and then in the head. He was well known for sharing his faith and standing up for the welfare and encouragement and edifying of his fellow Christians. He had tried to start up a welfare group to help poor Christians several years ago, but ceased at the urging of his wife for the safety of the family after Muslim extremists threatened their life over his efforts.

Mr Sawaan had no property (the shop was leased) and so this, combined with no attempt at robbery, leads his family to think that Islamic extremists must have been responsible, even though Mr Sawaan had not told them of any threats in recent weeks.

The assassin escaped on a motorbike, along with 2 accomplices who waited on the bike for him. The latest reports indicate no progress in the police information, although the President has asked a senior provincial official to look into the matter and report back. It is not considered likely that the killers will be caught.

Pray

Pray for Mr Sawaan's family, including his widow, his two sons and three daughters.

Pray that despite the outlook, his killers will be caught and brought to justice.

Pray that there would be more justice and equality for Christians in Pakistan

Act

Tell others about the situation in Pakistan and share this post, so people can know, and can pray.

Source

Torture and abuse of pregnant Christian domestic worker - husband missing

A Christian maid working for a Muslim woman has been falsely accused of stealing (including her own property) beaten and tortured so badly by police that she is in hospital and may lose her baby. Her husband was arrested and has not been heard from since. The events happened in Abbottabad during the first weekend in November.

The maid, Salma Emmanuel, acquired 100 grams of gold jewellery ready to wear to her brothers wedding. On the 3rd of November, for security, she asked her employer, Ghazal Riaz to keep it for her before she went to the wedding. In the early hours of Saturday 5th, Riaz contacted her to say that there had been a robbery in which around £6500 in cash and gold, including all of Salma's gold, had been taken, and asked Salma to come to the house immediately. Salma came along with her husband Emmanuel, who had never been to the house before. However the police sniffer dogs repeatedly went towards Emmanuel. Riaz's brother, Jawad, a colonel, was there and pressured the police and warned Salma and Emmanuel of dire consequences. As a result, the police arrested Emmanuel and took him to the police station. As far as we know, he hasn't been heard from since.

On the afternoon of Sunday 6th November, the police - without any arrest warrants - took Salma from her home to the police station, where she was beaten and tortured for three hours, and was forced, after repeatedly saying that she and her husband were innocent, to confess to the crime of stealing (including 'stealing' her own property). The female police officers kept kickingher and repeatedly said they would kill her and her baby if she did not confess, and that Riaz and her brother were very influential and would have her killed with impunity if she did not confess. Salma was sent home in a barely conscious state, and her family rushed her to hospital, with hospital staff saying her baby was unlikely to survive.

Source

Pray

1) For the safety and release of Emmanuel Masih

2) For healing of body and heart for Salma

3) For justice to be done and seen to be done - for the real culprits to be found and the victims to be freed

4) For the police officers who acted in such a criminal matter to be investigated and punished and brought to justice

5) For the influence of Jawad and people like him to be broken so that Christians can be free from this kind of abuse.

Raise the issue with your local MP's. In particular, point out that the UK taxpayer is funding this nation to a considerable degree.

Plotting Mullahs falsely accuse Lahore pastors of blasphemy

More evidence of the wicked abuse of blasphemy laws and the way they are used as a weapon against Christians is emerging with a new case, where Muslim leaders have used the forum of an interfaith meeting to falsely claim that the pastors who raised the issue of abusive / false blasphemy accusations had themselves blasphemed.

The events happened in Lahore, a city where in recent times at least one Imam has used 'reconciliation' meetings to force Christian churches to bow to his wishes after violence to the same end incited by the same Imam.

According to reports Bishop Pervaiz Joseph and Pastor Baber George have for years worked on Interfaith Harmony and peace promotion for seven years. They frequently met Muslim religious leaders and politicians to discuss issues of common interest. At one such meeting in October they raised the issue of the misuse of the blasphemy laws. Some of the Muslim leaders did not like it and accused them blasphemy against Islam's prophet. Both bishop and pastor have had to go into hiding with their families.

Local sources have said that in actual fact several of the Muslim leaders had been angered by the pairs' work to raise the status of Christians and give them a voice in the nation, and had tried to blackmail and harass Pastor George. They then planned to destroy them by accusations of blasphemy. Sources say Christian clergymen have been receiving threatening phone calls from Islamic leaders.

Source

Act:

Sign our petition, and tell your friends to do the same

Talk to your MP about the issue and encourage them to raise it, particularly if people you know are affected.

Email the Embassy and raise your concerns about the blasphemy law firmly but politely and temperately. Alternatively, and possibly even better, write to the Pakistani High Commissioner, Mr. Wajid Shamsul Hasan at

High Commission for Pakistan

34 – 36 Lowndes Square

London

SW1X 9JN

Both by email and letter, a good idea would be to be brief (maximum one page A4), with not a lot of polemics, and emphasis on recommendations for action

Pakistan Telecom Authority bans "offensive" text messages containing "Jesus Christ"

How long till we see signs like this on Pakistani highways...?

A block  on text messages that contain offensive words has been sanctioned by "Pakistan Telecommunications Authority." Allegedly banned words highlighted on BBC Asia News include;

• Athlete's foot
• Flatulence
• Jesus Christ
• Monkey crotch
• Back door
• Bewaquf (foolish)
• Bakwaas (nonsense)
• Wuutang (a presumed reference to American rap group the Wu-Tang Clan)

The inclusion of the name of Jesus Christ within this list of offensive words is another example of the intense hatred that resonates within Pakistan towards Christians.  

Such censorship would be received with great animosity in the democratic countries of the West.  Moreover such intervention flies in the face of the freedom's of expression that Pakistan's  Government has committed the nation too.  

It beggars belief that Jesus Christ could be considered a word offensive to Muslim's as he is written about as a great prophet in the Quran.  It would seem that many Pakistani Muslim's share a hatred  for Christian's, that exceeds the love for one of their own prophets.

The selection of other words raises further questions, I am baffled at terms such as Athletes foot and flatulence receiving a ban when they are commonly used medical terms.

Read more about this story on BBC Asia News:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15772292

10th March Protest and Concert receives American backing

Martin Mawyer President of the Christian Action Network 

Martin Mawyer, founder and President of the Christian Action Network, an anti-Islamist organization based  in the U.S., has been invited by the British-Pakistani Christian Association to be a featured speaker for the Trafalgar Square Peace Concert in London on March 10, 2012.

Mawyer will be joining an elite group of international Christian leaders to protect Pakistan’s blasphemy laws  that are being used to persecute those who leave Islam or criticize the religion. Mawyer has been chosen to represent the U.S. for the event. The protest will take place on the anniversary of the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian member of Pakistan’s parliament. He was assassinated after he condemned Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

“Shahbaz Bhatti is a hero, whose extraordinary bravery cost him his life, but almost no one knows his name,” said Mawyer.

The Christian Action Network has been a leading voice against blasphemy laws and has been fighting for the  freedom of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani mother who converted from Islam to Christianity and has been sentenced to death for criticizing her former religion. She was arrested after she engaged in a religious debate with her co-workers, who assaulted her and reported her to the police.

With 250,000 members across the U.S., CAN has been in contact with several members of Congress to introduce a resolution condemning blasphemy laws. CAN is partnering with the British-Pakistani Christian Association in England and other Christian organizations in Italy, the Netherlands and even in Pakistan to simultaneously introduce similar resolutions.

The protest will begin at the Pakistan embassy in London and then move to 10 Downing Street. Mawyer will speak at both locations. It will then move to Trafalger Square, where a three-hour concert will begin.

The Christian Action Network is also in the final stages of production for a new documentary about the rise of radical Islam in Europe, aided and abetted by political correctness.

More About Martin Mawyer:

Martin Mawyer is the President of the Christian Action Network, a non-profit activist organization dedicated to defending America’s religious and moral heritage. The organization is based on Biblical principles, values and traditions and has grown to have over 250,000 members.

Mawyer started his career as a freelance journalist and became the editor of Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority Report.” He founded the Christian Action Network in 1990, and it quickly became a powerful force in campaigns for protecting religious liberties, defending traditional marriage, protecting the rights of the unborn and allowing voluntary prayer in public schools.

The organization exposed offensive behavior at Walt Disney World’s “Gay Days” and how the resort did not offer prior notice to attendees or offer refunds to those who decided it was inappropriate for their families to be present during the event. CAN also successfully fought to end taxpayer funding to the National Endowment for the Arts to pay for offensive artwork mocking Christianity.

After 9/11, CAN shifted its focus to fighting the spread of radical Islam in the United States, viewing the ideology as a direct and formidable threat to the country’s values. In February 2009, CAN released Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S., which exposed the existence of 35 paramilitary-training compounds around the country run by a radical Islamic group with ties to terrorism. The film included footage from CAN’s visits to the sites and even the discovery of a new compound in Pennsylvania. The documentary was featured on FOX News Channel’s “Hannity,” and host, Sean Hannity, called it “shocking.”

In spring of 2010, CAN released its second film, Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West, telling the story of how an anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian was prosecuted for his criticism of the religion. It included a speech Wilders gave about the future of the U.S. and was the only DVD in the U.S. to include his own film, Fitna.

In 2011, CAN released, Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mosque, based on extensive interviews with 9/11 survivors and victims’ family members. CAN went on a screening tour to counter speaking engagements by the Ground Zero Mosque’s original imam, and held an event on September 11 in Congress with Rep. Allen West to show the film.

CAN, under Mawyer’s direction, is now working on a documentary about the Islamization of Europe and pro-Islam bias in the education system.

UKBA rejects again - part 1 : How to spin down persecution of Pakistani Christians

No room at the Inn for persecuted Christians..

BPCA is dealing with yet another case where the UK Border Agency (UKBA) has used extremely spurious reasoning to deny a Pakistani Christian’s claim to asylum and refugee status in the UK. The case concerns a Catholic whose identity we cannot yet reveal- a single man, aged 30.

The problematic areas of the rejection surround two areas :

1) The assessment of the situation of Christians generally, and

2) the particular reasoning used to reject the applicants account of persecution against him.

Starting with the first area, whilst a few points seem reasonable (eg the UKBA recognises there is a far greater danger for converts from Islam than for people who have always been Christian) the ridiculousness is found first in the reaction the UKBA showed to the applicants submission of an article about the assassination earlier this year of (Catholic) Minorities Minister Shabhaz Bhatti as evidence of the plight of Catholics in Pakistan. The UKBA stated this was not reasonable evidence because:

‘Bhatti was a high profile figure involved in supporting numerous religious minorities, not just Catholics. This is in direct contrast to yourself who is essentially an ordinary Roman Catholic’

Leaving aside the terrible English grammar, let us just ask observe a couple of facts and ask one simple question. Firstly, the Minorities Ministry is necessary, because it is essentially the only structural bulwark of protection for otherwise politically powerless minorities (and even then, it’s effect is merely to ameliorate conditions a little).

Secondly, the precariousness of even that Ministry was shown by the very strong moves made to disband it after the assassination of the Minister! And finally, if things for minorities were so good, why was there a need for a Minorities Ministry in the first place? It is precisely because of the terrible conditions and continuous persecution and discrimination ‘ordinary’ Catholics (and other religious minorities) have to endure that such a ministry was necessary in the first place. If conditions were relatively good, there would be no need for such a ‘high profile’ campaigner in the first place!

If the UKBA requires a full listing of the number of Christian Communities that have suffered inequality or persecution over the last 2 years, they could not go far wrong by accessing the BPCA blogsite. Literally all our community is undermined, underprivileged or discriminated as a consequence of their faith. Moreover, many stories are simply not printed due to threats against reporters with a conscience who would otherwise publish the stories, or the lack of interest in Christian communities exhibited by other reporters. It is for palpable reasons (significant deaths and injuries) that the “Committee to Protect Journalists” have emphasized the need for continuous enhanced safety measures for reporters in Pakistan:

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/08/more-hostile-environment-guidelines-for-pakistans.php

Quite frankly, this, coupled with the indifference exhibited by many Pakistani Journalists in portraying the reality of Christians as an underclass and persecuted minority, have led to an inaccurate assessment of the prevailing suffering for our homeland community. A study taken by agents on an unofficial basis, un-shepherded by the Pakistani government would, in the BPCA’s opinion, be markedly more revealing and would no doubt substantiate the constant campaigning from humanitarian groups.

Incredibly, the rejection letter goes on to say (of converts from Islam!!) that the many (and we should say, far from exhaustive) accounts of violence against Christians in the recent US State Department report

‘fall...far short of showing that a person who converts to Christianity faces as such in Pakistan a real risk of treatment which can be described as persecutory or otherwise inhuman or degrading treatment.’

It then concludes that ‘a Christian convert who returned to Pakistan would not face a real risk of persecution’! Quite frankly, such ignorance of the reality on the ground is disturbing, especially as this falls in the part of the letter dedicated to ‘objective reporting’ of pertinent background information.

The main reason for such significant downplaying of the official reports is that they ‘have to be set against the background of there being, as previously stated, some 4 million Christians in Pakistan’. This is a tired line we have heard from the UKBA before. They also try and say that a lot of persecution of Christians is really about ‘caste’ and to imply that as someone from a relatively wealthy Christian family, such did not affect the applicant. (See comments on a previous similarly spuriously reasoned asylum rejection -http://britishpakistanichristian.blogspot.com/2011/09/asylum-seeker-rejected-on-spurious_30.html ).

More to the point, it is the relative size of the minority that is important, along with other considerations. 4 million is still a very small proportion of the population, and even in provinces where they are concentrated, they mostly constitute tiny and isolated communities amidst a sea of (often hostile) Muslim villages. This tiny size would lead them to be vulnerable to be overlooked, even if it were not for the rampant discrimination and enmity against them displayed in much of popular street, religious, judicial and media sentiment.

Christians constitute (even at the higher figures suddenly quoted as accurate here compared to previous UKBA rejection letters which have given it as a speculative higher figure compared to the lower official figures) about 2% of the population. This tiny population has no weight in deciding political futures even when block voting and thus has been overlooked by its politicians. This has allowed unruly, extremist, jealous or simply sadistic groups or individuals to freely conduct their desired maltreatment, with impunity. This impunity is bolstered by the knowledge that systematic and cultural bias is in their favour.

The handling of some further ‘objective background information’ gives more grounds for concern. For instance, to try and play down the Christian situation re blasphemy charges, the report quotes a report that says 50% of all blasphemy charges against Muslims. This is true but disingenuous and irrelevant. More to the point, 40% of such charges were in fact against Christians, who only comprise 2% of the population, showing the massively disproportionate use of such charges.

The report also cites a number of factors in a similar disingenuous manner. For instance, it highlights one or two very rare examples of ‘success’, like the building of a Christian chapel within a jail. However, do Muslim groups have to pay similar levels of costs for comparable facilities? The UKBA don’t say. Besides, such facilities can easily be taken away. For instance, Christians were attacked at Christmas several years ago after Government land was given for the building of a church:

http://britishpakistanichristian.blogspot.com/2009/12/65-christains-attacked-on-christmas-eve.html

For a more recent example of the vulnerability of Christian property and facilities, note the case where land purchased for use as an orphanage by a church has been usurped in a violent attack in which 29 were injured and 1 man lost his life:

http://britishpakistanichristian.blogspot.com/2011/10/christian-village-under-siege-near-mian.html

The UKBA mentions provincial assemblies making calls for reviews of blasphemy laws, but fails to mention that such calls had no effect. It mentions a massive debate on the blasphemy law, but fails to note that 40,000 Muslims called for the death of the Christian Asia Bibi as part of that ‘debate’.

http://www.asia-pacific-solidarity.net/southasia/pakistan/news/afp_40000pakistanimuslimsprot_090111.htm

It reports of politicians vowing to apprehend killers of Bhatti, but neglects that the police let the culprits escape, or the concocted evidence of a family feud as the cause, rather than Bhatti’s Christian faith. It also reports politicians calling for investigations into discrimination in aid in flood relief programs, but no mention of the outcomes (what outcomes!) for such investigations. Placing trust in politicians rhetoric and words rather than actual deeds and results on the ground is quite typical, it seems, of the UKBA approach. They seem to hold the very naive belief that Pakistani politicians spoken word is law and effective and true. (If any of you saw the recent BBC documentary ‘Secret Pakistan’ you may laugh now.....).  View Secret Pakistan here:

http://britishpakistanichristian.blogspot.com/2011/11/general-musharraf-states-that-pakistans.html

The report also mentions cash compensation of the mother of Shazia Bashir, a Christian girl raped and murdered by her employer, a very senior Muslim lawyer. Apparently this is meant to reassure us that Pakistan looks after it’s minorities! Pah! Cash for shame, shameful cash. It just shows that powerful Muslim elites will protect their own whilst fobbing of the crying need for justice with wads of cash. The perpetrators still go free, there is no deterrent, and this is supposed to be grounds for rejecting an asylum claim? The BPCA condemns the policy of money payments in place of justice for Christian victims of violence, rape and murder.

The UKBA claims that Taliban ideology is behind an upsurge in attacks against Christians. If that is so, then most attacks on Christians would occur in Khyber Pakhtunkwa. However the majority of attacks are in the Punjab (simply due to the significantly larger population) and not in areas with Taliban dominance.

The report mentions an apparent lack of discrimination for Christians applying for medical roles or universities. However, the numbers of Christian students to attain such places are small. More importantly is that lack of complaints is not evidence of fair practice.

The UKBA have described the fear of reprisals felt by Christians when legal proceedings are taken against perpetrators of violence and persecution. The BPCA is disappointed that the UKBA failed to recognise evidence that backs up that fear – for instance, that all seventy of the accused in the attack on Gojra were acquitted due to a lack of evidence and failure of any witnesses to come forward due to threats that forced some to flee abroad, and all to withdraw their testimony as the following article notes

http://churchinchains.ie/node/432 - also note the comments of Islamic leaders in the region which exemplify precisely the attitude that directly pertains to Mr Raza’s situation.

Read part 2 by clicking (here)

UKBA rejects again - part 2 : How to make an attack vanish into thin air

Pakistani Airport - rigorous border controls?

Having dealt in Part 1 with the distinctly unobjective nature of the ‘objective background’ in UKBA’s rejection letter, we know turn to the specific meat of the rejection letter with regard to Mr Raza’s claim for asylum. Before we deal with the two main issues, we need to cover two minor points that the UKBA used as evidence against Mr Raza’s credibility.

Firstly, in the initial screening interview, Mr Raza had said he had an uncle in the UK. In the later asylum interview Mr Raza stated that this individual was not an uncle by blood, but in fact a friend of his father’s. The UKBA claims that ‘it is not considered that your explanation for why this contradiction occurred is entirely reasonable..... Furthermore you have been in the UK for four years and do clearly understand the meaning of the word uncle’. Quite frankly, this reveals a distinct lack of understanding of Asian culture, particularly familial ties. To the majority of Pakistani young people any family friend of a parent is called Aunty and Uncle. Irrespective of how close they are these terms are applied fairly liberally. Moreover a very close friend of parents would be held in high esteem and would be considered and accepted as a real uncle. In addition, Mr Raza says he said that this was the situation in the original interview, although UKBA records don’t record this. And let’s get one thing straight – the UKBA says that because Mr Raza has been in the UK for 4 years, he can’t have kept the cultural traits and upbringing he had from a baby? Heck, the author of this article has never been to Pakistan, yet has had people he has never met in person call him uncle. And for what it’s worth, it’s not just an Asian thing. For over 30 years as child and man I have been part of various predominantly white churches where the use of uncle and aunt for non-family church members, particularly, but not exclusively for Sunday School teachers, is quite common, although not quite as ubiquitous, perhaps as in Asian cultures.

Secondly, Mr Raza was working in Dubai before he briefly returned to Pakistan. After the incident he fled from he came to the UK via Dubai. The UKBA stated it was ‘inconsistent’ that Mr Raza did not return to Dubai where he had been employed, but rather to the UK where he had been unable to get a job for 4 years. However, there is significant discrimination against Christians in Dubai – they cannot become naturalized citizens, for instance. The freedom in the UK to become naturalized and the freedoms that Christians enjoy in the UK would be – quite rightly – a major pull for someone in Mr Raza’s position.

Mr Raza’s claim for asylum was based on two specific incidents of persecution, one relatively minor, one rather more serious. We will deal with the minor one first, briefly – that Mr Raza was the only Christian in his class, and at one point he made a joke at which the whole class turned on him because he was a Christian. A teacher was able to resolve the issue soon after, however. The UKBA, quite reasonably said because of lack of evidence, they could not make a ‘determinative finding’. The problem is that in a later paragraph concerned with Mr Raza’s ‘credibility’ suddenly the reasonable conclusion that they could not be certain about the incident becomes additional grounds for considering Mr Raza’s credibility to have been damaged by his actions, and so ‘benefit of the doubt’ is not extended. ‘In particular consideration has been given to the school incident which is considered uncertain’ the rejection letter says. How uncertainty about an event morphs into firm evidence against credibility is never made clear. This is very spurious reasoning.

The main incident that caused Mr Raza to flee Pakistan occurred on 1^st December 2006. After returning home from working in Dubai, Mr Raza helped look after his fathers shop (an estate agents) for him. Three men came in wanting to talk to Mr Raza’s fathers. While they waited, they talked to Mr Raza, and when he confirmed he had just returned from the UK, they stated that white people in the UK were killing Muslims. Mr Raza replied it wasn’t so, but that Muslims were using religion to kill people in the name of Jihad. One man shoved him and called Mr Raza ‘a cleaner’ or ‘sweeper’ a derogatory term usually used of Christians. The conversation quickly degenerated into the men shouting at and attacking Mr Raza. The altercation attracted a crowd, and then people started to accuse Mr Raza of blasphemy – of attacking the Islamic religion, and that they were going to hand Mr Raza over to the police. Mr Raza managed to flee and get a taxi home. His father told him to escape and sent him to relatives in another city. Within two days a FIR (First Information Report) was filed against Mr Raza. After moving between several sets of relatives, Mr Raza’s family arranged for him to have tickets to fly out of Pakistan.

The problem starts when the UKBA starts assessing this incident. In his screening interview (used mainly for administrative purposes with no detail required), Mr Raza said he was not wanted by authorities in any country. This fact is used by UKBA as the basis for stating that ‘it is not accepted that you argued with these three men as claimed which resulted in an FIR being lodged’. Mr Raza could have just said yes, the UKBA asserts. This is an unbelievable argument! For instance, if I wanted to claim asylum after an incident in which the police were involved, and was asked such a question, I would quite naturally assume in an administrative question that this general question was referring to any OTHER situation / country other than the situation I was using to claim asylum. Yet the UKBA will not even consider this possibility and use what could so easily be a simple misunderstanding to argue that the central event of the asylum claim never happened. Astounding!

They then go on to further support their argument by a detailed appeal to the Pakistani border and security processes. They claim that because Pakistan checks all people leaving the country to see if they are wanted individuals, the fact that Mr Raza was able to fly out of the country indicates that no FIR could possibly have been outstanding against him. Mr Wilson Chowdhry, head of the BPCA, married to a Pakistani woman, and himself the head of a security company is eminently qualified to comment on these issues. His observations are rather revealing. Here are his comments :

In point 33 .... of the “Reasons for Refusal” (RFR) letter .... you have highlighted rather awe-inspiring processes purported to be undertaken by the Pakistani border authorities. In reality however the scheme alluded to is the construct of a rather vivid imagination. My wife is a Pakistani National and has never been the subject of such an inquisition even for her first trip to the UK. Moreover, I have personal knowledge and experience of how simple it is to circumvent any such procedure with a small bribe. When travelling to Pakistan in 2009, I was informed at Heathrow Airport by a PIA member of staff that despite having forgotten to obtain a visa to Pakistan they would allow me to travel on their plane. They had stated that with a small bribe I would be able to enter the country due to my wife’s nationality. I opted for a later flight. I have seen my father, when he was alive avoid customs duty on gifts for his family by paying a small bribe, a tradition I have not continued I assure you. My point here is that even if a system exists it can be circumvented, moreover the lack of consistency has created a culture of avoidance of duty, nullifying any real expression of any prescribed practice. Besides, simple arithmetic would illustrate that the number of international flights coupled with the limited Military, Police and border authority deployment prevents any effective operation of your described Pakistani border process.

In a later paragraph in the same point 33 and for point 34 you refer to PISCES and it’s ability to control ingress and egress of blacklisted travellers. The system described to work effectively would required to be in tandem with a CRB operating system or criminality systems. The UK’s own Security Industry Authority (SIA) in 2009 had meetings with the Pakistani Embassy to fashion a way to authenticate CRB Checks in Pakistan due to the inability to obtain them and the lack of a central database. The SIA and has highlighted on several occasions during seminars that CRB checks from Pakistan are unreliable. For the UKBA’s attention I remind them that CRB reports are still only available at a local level and are in written not typed format.

Mr Wilson then goes on to note the inability of Pakistani security and police processes to prevent the entry and prolonged residence of Osama bin Laden, arguably the most wanted person in the world.

I would only add that the UKBA should be very well aware that rhetoric and reality over border controls are often very far apart..... after all the UK’s border controls have been scandalously lax compared to what they are supposed to be, and those border controls are run by ..... (ahem) the UKBA! I’m sure I read that the three most senior UKBA executives have been suspended over something to do with border controls..... And didn’t a proscribed Islamic extremist waltz in to the country in July after being explicitly banned by the Home Secretary? Ah well, you know what they say – ‘birds of a feather flock together’. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised if border agencies believe each others’ rhetoric!

Finally, the ridiculousness of UKBA’s approach is shown by a paragraph in their rejection letter which notes the fact that Mr Raza’s father owned an estate agents which ‘by your own evidence utilized by Muslims, including the men you claimed attacked you’ and says that this ‘clearly demonstrates that your family were able to live openly in society with other faiths with no apparent difficulties’! Now that takes the breath away. Apparently Pakistan is some multi-cultural paradise! Firstly, very often Christians in Pakistan undergo insults, attacks, threats, discrimination and the like without too much complaint – it is something they are used to. Christians live openly in Pakistan? Sure. They have to. They can’t exactly disappear into some bolt-hole. They also die openly in Pakistan for their faith, they are also attacked, arrested, bullied, persecuted and discriminated against openly in Pakistan. According to the UKBA Mr Raza’s family can freely live openly as Christians, if you manage to ignore the attack on Mr Raza, which the UKBA ingeniously manages to do. Perhaps the UKBA should add a little common sense and consistency in argument to their ingeniousness. BPCA awaits with bated breath......

In summary then, our concerns are

1) In general the UKBA seems to severely downplay the persecution of Christians in Pakistan, using highly selective lines of evidence and reasoning, and

2) They dismissed Mr Raza’s application on highly spurious grounds that involve using a simple misunderstanding in the initial stages of the interview to dismiss the main incident when he was attacked, and a breathtaking confidence in Pakistan’s allegedly inviolable border control and security systems.