Australian Deported From Bahrain Over Facebook Posts

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Deported From Bahrain Over Facebook Posts

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 5, 2012 @09:52AM from the bah-humbug dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Australian English instructor Tony Mitchell recently moved to Bahrain where he was offered a job at the state-run Polytechnic University. He described himself as a witness of the various horrifying events in the struggling country (see The Atlantic's four-part series). Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and forced to flee because of posts he made on Facebook."

42 of 188 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

When in Rome by hedwards · 2012-01-05 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.
Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.
1. Re:When in Rome by inzy · 2012-01-05 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors. he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported? perhaps if more people stood up, not less, we wouldn't have these problems, regardless of having crossed some arbitrary boundary like a nation-state border. we're all humans, irrespective of where we are. show some backbone and stop being so subservient to power
2. Re:When in Rome by hedwards · 2012-01-05 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities. Same goes for any other countries.
  Even the US has its standards and if as somebody here on a visa one does something that pisses off the government one shouldn't be surprised if one isn't offered a renewal.
3. Re:When in Rome by elrous0 · 2012-01-05 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.
  And if you do, you had better be the mad Jester in the court. Otherwise don't get too attached to that whole "breathing" thing.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
4. Re:When in Rome by bigstrat2003 · 2012-01-05 10:22 · Score: 2
  
  Nor is he from the USA. I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll, cause it's obvious from the summary that the dude is Australian.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
5. Re:When in Rome by rtfa-troll · 2012-01-05 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He's not in the USA.
  No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what. This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.
  People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
6. Re:When in Rome by rtfa-troll · 2012-01-05 10:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll
  I don't think so. American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners and there has been a bunch of case law saying that you can't take away free speech from people just because they aren't citizens. This is a thing which quite a few Americans are rightly proud of. Recently there has been a bunch of outrageous stupidity with things like Guantanamo (indefinite detainment without trial for foreigners) and SOPA (taking away domains from foreigners) but mostly these are outright abuses of the law and the government there still tries to avoid such things getting to court because there is a good chance they would lose.
  I think the grandparent was just, as he should pointing out that there are other countries, such as the USA (or Iceland or in fact the whole EU etc.), which are superior to Bahrain in that they support everybody's right to free speech even if they are just visiting.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
7. Re:When in Rome by element-o.p. · 2012-01-05 10:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.
  Agreed, although I would go one step further to say that, while this is a fundamental right that nobody has the right to take away from you, that doesn't mean that people with power won't try, nor does it mean that you will not (possibly) suffer for attempting to exercise that right. There is a subtle distinction between "This is the way it should be" and "This is the way it is."
  
  This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.
  People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.
  Agreed, without reservations.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
8. Re:When in Rome by Dhalka226 · 2012-01-05 10:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors.
  He does.
  
  he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported?
  It is. They are not mutually exclusive.
  I support people standing up for whatever they believe in, and I certainly support this guy's cause. At the same time, I have no idea where this notion that one should be free from consequences if they are doing what they feel is right has come from. It is not a thing to be proud of, but it is a reality. Black people were arrested and beaten constantly standing up for their rights in the civil rights area. I'm sure none of them wanted to be, and but I also don't remember them going on about how they were in disbelief that they were arrested for breaking the law. They expected it. That was their way of standing up and drawing attention to how bad things were.
  So yes, he is welcome to stand up to oppressors, but he has to also be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. That's pretty much the crux of the whole "taking a stand" thing; if you're only doing it with the expectation there will never be consequences, you're not exactly going out on a limb are you? Frankly he should be quite happy with the results. Things aren't too bad for him and he has made the news nationally and internationally. That's damn close to a best case scenario for people hoping to effect change.
9. Re:When in Rome by rtfa-troll · 2012-01-05 10:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities.
  That's not the question. The question is:
  
  Your company sends you for a one year contract in Iran; you see your male neighbor rape another female neighbor. Then he reports her to the police. Now she, the rape victim, is going up for trial for adultery and likely to be stoned to death. Do you say it's wrong?
  
  You never intended to badmouth the Iranians; You wanted to support their culture and be open; but now you are faced with the bad side of it. Are you really saying it's a better person who lets the rape victim be stoned to death without a word?
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
10. Re:When in Rome by Bucc5062 · 2012-01-05 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  Wow. That was a face slap of cold water...but well put.
  I'll bite on this for a moment and play the "what would I do" game. Given what you said, I would quietly make plans to get out of the country quickly, but with reason. I'd tell my local boss I have family issues that need addressing at home and it wont take long. Before male neighbor or female neighbor truly discover I witnessed this atrocity I am on a plane, back for home. My next stop is to call a recruiter to begin looking for a new job, because no matter what the outcome, I am screwed. I tell the home office it is impossible for me to go back to Iran because I was witness to a crime that was legal in that country, but goes against everything I believe in. If I don't value my life I then go to the press and report my story knowing it may create back lash against me, but brings out the sad tale. If I do I shut up, pray I don't get fired and hope the recruiter can find me a new job.
  Personally, I would never take a job in a country like Iran, no matter how beautiful the country may be, how friendly the general population may be. It is not the general population I fear, it is the government and in such a place, I have no protection...period.
  You really raised a good point, one people in countries like the US, Australia, England, at el miss. When we provide aid to overt dictators (be they religious or secular) we grant them some level of value, of power they do not deserve. There will always be people who will do anything for money. Given your example, that person in Iran would look the other way, say thank you for the big check and live with no conscious.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
11. Re:When in Rome by fusiongyro · 2012-01-05 11:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That is, of course, merely curtailing another fundamental human right to resettle. Beyond that, it was tried (and didn't work) for the USSR.
12. Re:When in Rome by LunaticTippy · 2012-01-05 11:34 · Score: 2
  
  It's risky. I have family in Saudi Arabia, and they are afraid enough of Saudi courts and the monarchy that they would never criticize anything on the record. People are treated inhumanely, especially women, and few people say anything about it. If I were to ever visit a country like that I would keep my mouth firmly closed while on the record. Even if I left, vowing never to return, I would be scared to openly criticize much.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
13. Re:When in Rome by sunderland56 · 2012-01-05 11:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right
  
  [citation needed]
  
  Seriously - name a country that had such a right before 1776.
14. Re:When in Rome by icebraining · 2012-01-05 12:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  or in fact the whole EU
  Not quite, while most speech is free here, we still criminalize some at least in part of the countries. For example in Germany, where denying the holocaust is unlawful (and in fact, such laws were first imposed by the US Army when they took control after WWII - apparently, Free Speech only counts back home).
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
15. Re:When in Rome by treeves · 2012-01-05 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  ...and if the cultural norm is to shoot people for peacefully protesting, we should just accept that cultural difference and be happy.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
16. Re:When in Rome by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-05 12:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, it does date back a long time. The concept was not an invention of the US consititution.
17. Re:When in Rome by cavreader · 2012-01-05 13:23 · Score: 2
  
  "American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners>
  I think there is still a lot grey areas when it comes to dealing with non-resident foreigners.
  Guantanamo has always been a half ass and reckless way of handing a problem that doesn't really fit into any existing US judicial system. Those captured on foreign territory engaged in hostilities against the US has caused the problem. The US judicial system is not a real good option. Any terrorist detained in the US do have the right to the same US judicial system and protections that all citizens have. It's those detained in foreign countries that is presenting the problem. Technically they are prisoners of war and the normal process in wartime is to re-patriot them to their home countries after hostilities have ended. This type of system does not really apply either because the hostilities have not ended and I doubt the hostilities will end anytime soon. In addition the International Geneva Conventions allows for the summary execution of those captured during war that bear no insignia or other identification that proves they are agents of the state governments involved in the war. I believe this item was targeted at spy's and grew out of WW2 and the cold war eras. The US has tried to release a majority of the prisoners but no country is willing to accept them. The US has even used bribes to encourage a country to accept the prisoner without much luck. I don't know why the US just doesn't strap parachutes on those being released and air drop them back where they first captured and be done with.
18. Re:When in Rome by blackraven14250 · 2012-01-05 13:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Free speech only counts back home, but only because there was a huge portion of the German populace that refused to believe it happened. Cult-like indoctrination of a country is a long process which Hitler successfully performed, and it takes drastic measures to undo said indoctrination.
19. Re:When in Rome by TubeSteak · 2012-01-05 14:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In a way this is an example of why third world countries don't improve to first world standards. Their best people leave to first world countries. As a result the third world country is run by third world leaders supported by third world voters.
  Ha!
  Bahrain is a third world country supported by the US of A.
  The same goes for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, and Qatar.
  (I may have missed a middle eastern country or two, there are a few asian ones I didn't include)
  As long as they're with us on Oil, Israel, and the Global War on Terror, we give them free reign to act like assholes to their own citizens.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
20. Re:When in Rome by sunderland56 · 2012-01-05 15:40 · Score: 2
  
  The concept, no. But in practice, if a slave in e.g. ancient Rome went up to a centurion and spoke his mind, bad things would happen to him.
  
  The US Constitution did not, of course, guarantee freedom of speech either. Black slaves were most certainly not free to speak as they wanted.
21. Re:When in Rome by blackraven14250 · 2012-01-05 16:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, they didn't do it out of a "lack of giving a fuck about any rights". Have you ever met a WW2 vet? They were ALL there for a noble cause that they understood, even if they were scared shitless of the prospect of being in the war. Not a single one of them "didn't give a fuck" about rights. These were real heroes; they were there to save the fucking world from the oppression that Hitler represented and actively implemented on the people he didn't exterminate, because the reality was that he was going to take over Europe and eventually get to American soil, after consolidating a European base with his incredibly effective war machine. That was the mindset of every fucking soldier over there, not this paranoid oppression of free speech bullshit. This was the absolute prime example of "They came for the Jews, and I did nothing. They came for the gays, and I did nothing. Then they came for me, and nobody was left to help.", and every person knew it. They were undoing the damage he had done to German society, not trampling over the rights of the German people, and for anyone to say otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
22. Re:When in Rome by cavreader · 2012-01-05 18:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If Germany was to start adopting the same aggressiveness today against it's neighboring countries the Europeans would do the same thing they did the first time around which is nothing but engage in meaningless diplomatic talks and abandon any of their allies in an effort to appease the German aggressiveness. The US could have stayed out of the European theater in WW2 because there were no US interests particularly endangered. The Germans couldn't successfully cross the Chanel to attack Britain let alone cross the Atlantic with a large enough invasion force to attack the US. By the time they could have did so the US had it's nuclear deterence to prevent any such invasion. When Japan made one of the stupidest military decisions in history in attacking the US the US made the European theater their first priority when they officially declared war. The Americans gained nothing out of WW2 in Europe. Instead the US just ended up providing the European countries with military and economic aid for 40+ years. It's still hard to except that the US would sacrifice so many lives fighting for Europe when it is obvious the Europe would not do the same thing for the US if necessary. The civilian navy merchantmen and ships lost just trying to supply England with everything from food to aircraft is never appreciated. Keeping the USSR in check has never been appreciated. The only country that steps up to help the US today is England because they still remember how close they remember how close they came from losing their country by relying on soft power and diplomacy. They are the only country the US can usually count on for support when necessary. The rest of Europe just stands around naval gazing and complaining. NATO is a useless institution where the majority of members are so far behind US military technology they can not even interface with US battlefield systems. The only thing thing they are good at is holding the US coats and staying out of the way of the US military. The Europeans could not handle the Balkan wars without US assistance. Most of the European countries could not even deploy their troops and equipment to Afghanistan without US help. NATO couldn't take out the Libyan air defense systems in a timely fashion and had to get the US to do it for them. I am glad the US is downsizing the military and hopefully they start the process by removing all troops and equipment from Europe and let them handle their own problems for a change. And as a bonus they should also punt the expense of the missile defense system in Europe. The US is in no danger of missiles from anyone in the the middle eastern countries so why spend US money on the project?
23. Re:When in Rome by Yev000 · 2012-01-05 20:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree with you that US only entered WW2 due to pearl harbour, but I'm curious, would you prefer a Russian or German Europe to what it is now? And if anything Japan showed US that it is not untouchable.
  US profited big time from WW2 in various ways, I'd say that European countries (UK included) have more than paid their debt to the US by now.
  What I'm trying to say is that the world of politics is a little bit more complicated than "I helped you, be grateful". There are a lot of fingers in the same pie, I'm absolutely sure than the US gets more than their fair share.
  I'd also be careful what you wish for. Despite appearances, European economy is a lot larger than US Economy. US needs Europe more than Europe needs US. And we all need China and Russia more than most people realise.
  So how about we all try and get along without bickering about who helped who 70 years ago. It's starting to sound almost as bad as complaining about the crusade.
Get out of fail free card. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

When a tyrannical government buys you a ticket out of their country, you take it.
1. Re:Get out of fail free card. by elrous0 · 2012-01-05 10:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Government: Here's your plane ticket. Get out.
  Dissenter: Screw you, man! I'm standing up for FREEDOM!!
  Government: We could shock your balls instead.
  Dissenter: Which flight was that again?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He is lucky by stanlyb · 2012-01-05 10:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Under the new NDAA bill, he would simply "disappear" without due process. God bless democratic Bahrain.
1. Re:He is lucky by Pecisk · 2012-01-05 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For a love of.... We are talking about Bahrain, not US. It is getting old. Push your message about evil NDAA and POSA in other forums. This one already knows that.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Derp? by Tyr07 · 2012-01-05 10:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not saying what happened to him is right. There's a lot of wrong in this world, but a lot of this wrong is fact.
If you go to a country, with a government who performs these acts, while in a public position that's easily identified and, well, damn it's public man.
You're out there easy to see, you're visiting on the basis of the job, and you draw attention to yourself in a country where police damage property and people disappear all the time?
Did you think your justice shield would protect you? It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still not in your best interest to do it.
Wait until you leave the country and don't ever plan / intend to go back (They might be waiting for you) before you start commenting and throwing around any ego (Specifically his comment about wait till after the 30th and I'll tell you)
When you say something like that, it's a slap in the face to the people you're protesting. They told you they want you out, and you know they're watching facebook, so you tell them even tho I promised not to say anything, I'm going to do it as soon as I leave?
Bad idea to show your cards there.
I'm just glad you took the chance to get out and your family is safe. Places like that can get scary very, very fast.
You'd think... by owlnation · 2012-01-05 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

...that, as an Australian, he'd be used to censorship on the internet.

If you are willing to go to an oppressive country. And in so doing contribute to their economy and success, then... it's just crocodile tears when you find out that that oppressive country is oppressive to you too.
1. Re:You'd think... by SpazmodeusG · 2012-01-05 10:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  To be fair we never allowed that censorship law to pass. There are still forces at work to get the internet censored but currently it's uncensored here in Australia.
2. Re:You'd think... by icebraining · 2012-01-05 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What do you mean "we", white man? Not everyone here's from the US, you know?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
This is unfortunate. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-01-05 10:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is unfortunate--there is a great deal that is quite wrong in the world, that is in effect only available on a pull-basis. I met a guy at a panel discussion a few months ago who had been personally tortured by Kaderov, the governor of Chechneya for Moscow. Why the hell do we waste so much time on what they put on the news, when you could actually be reporting that kind of thing on the news? Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
But how can it be? by The+Creator · 2012-01-05 10:24 · Score: 2

The lovely lovely democratic freedom loving state of Bahrain is on the US good guy list! (Along with Saudi Arabia)
The US even has troops in these countries so that their own troops can focus on upholding liberty and justice for all!
That Australian chap must have said something really really nasty! Nasty nasty! Must have deserved what he got!

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
And how is this news? by MalleusEBHC · 2012-01-05 10:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Bahrain beat and killed its own citizens because they dared to demand rights. The rulers are evil tyrants along the lines of Gaddafi, Assad, et al. Kicking an Australian out of the country for what he posted on Facebook is nothing compared to the far more vile atrocities they have committed.
Yet more sensationistic articles by jklovanc · 2012-01-05 10:44 · Score: 5, Informative

Mr. Mitchell was not;
1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa
2. "forced to flee". He was advides by his ex-boss to leave as soon as possible. He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.
How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.
1. Re:Yet more sensationistic articles by idontgno · 2012-01-05 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  "Reading between the lines" and "recognizing subtext" isn't quite the same as "throwing falsehoods."
  A threat's a threat, even if they don't wave the electrodes in your face.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
An Austrailian teaching English? by Maow · 2012-01-05 13:02 · Score: 2

Perish the thought, I think I'm gonna faint.
I've been there; they barely even speak English.
(joking, just joking)
Re:As a general rule ... by Mashiki · 2012-01-05 13:03 · Score: 2

Well...this is pretty much true, unless you're in a western country. Then it's perfectly okay. Try it sometime and see what happens, because in a "western nation" you'll be treated with kid gloves. Anywhere else, they'll put the kid gloves on you before they take a hand, or start lashing you, then deport you.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Hey, we do that too. Worse, really by eulernet · 2012-01-05 13:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

a few sad stories of injured policemen at the protests
In Lybia, the goverment says that a lot of soldiers were killed during the protests, but in fact, they were killed by other soldiers because they refused to shoot people.
Being a soldier does not automatically make you a brainless killer.
Use common sense people. by Lord+Kano · 2012-01-05 17:52 · Score: 2

Not all of the world is run like a European/American-style Democracy. Just because you can get away with this sort of thing in a western-style Democracy doesn't mean that you should think you can get away with it anywhere.
Not that I think Bahrain's government is right here, but he had to know that these guys play by these rules.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Rules For Bahrain... by IonOtter · 2012-01-05 18:54 · Score: 2

1. Make huge gobs of money.
2. If you are not there to make money yourself, you better be making money for someone else. (Spending it or being a slave.)
3. If you do ANYTHING that is not 1 or 2, you will soon be dead, deported, or being exploited as a slave to make someone else money.
Bahrain is a cross between "Brave New World", "Atlas Shrugged" and "Lord of the Flies".
Act accordingly.

--
[End Of Line]