I was going to give this post by Fugstar a free pass to avoid controversy in the middle of Ramadan. But I feel that Fugstar’s post is just beyond the pale. Fugstar suggests that the blame for the recent abduction and killing of BRAC workers in Afghanistan is due to the microlending (or I guess as Fugstar would have it, the usurious) activities of BRAC. 

There’s some creative thinking going on here.

Consider the case of the abducted worke. Reports on the abduction (see for example, the Washington Post) suggest that this was an armed robbery. $600 was stolen from BRAC’s office at the time of the abduction.  It’s also possible that there was some politics involved, as the Taliban have been targetting aid workers for some time . On the other hand, these very well could have been common criminals who had access to police uniforms.

Similarly, in the case of the aid worker who was shot, reports suggest that this was either a robbery, or politically motivated.

But one would never know this from Fugstar’s post. He’s assumed that this is about “public revulsion” of BRAC’s activities in Afghanistan - that the poor are “answer[ing] back.” There’s no support anywhere in reports on this.

This is highly irresponsible. Sure, microfinance does have its issues. And the activities of our NGO’s do have their issues. But one should not have to resort to factually incorrect, unsupported readings (if I were in a harsher mood, I would call it them “lies”) to make one’s point.  Truth should not be the victim of one’s advocacy.

I find Fugstar’s post particularly troubling because it’s reasoning of this nature that’s often the first step towards justifying the morally indefensible.