Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Permabear · 25-11-2008 9:20pm

This post has been deleted.

balanced view · 25-11-2008 10:25pm

So, we will be deporting an awful lot of irish too

Permabear · 25-11-2008 10:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 25-11-2008 11:03pm

"We" never did, IMO.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2008 11:42pm

Mate, I can't come up with a rational argument for going to church on Sundays. Cultures and beliefs just are, they defy rational objectivity.

Here's the problem with that. There is no small amount of evidence that male circumcision is actually healthy and medically better than not being circumcised. So the Danes are basically increasing the risks of all the various problems to include dangerous-in-infants urinary tract infections, because they don't like infant/youth circumcision. If that's not cultural overriding, what is?

Reality check. Does anyone here honestly believe that if the Nigerian government were to announce "No more FGMs, and this time we mean it" and to start actively enforcing it, that the practise will suddenly and completely stop? Anyone?

The solution here is not to prohibit or repress the culture, the solution is to change it. The Romans attempted to suppress Christianity by punitive methods, but Christianity basically eliminated Roman polytheism by persuasion and conversion. If you ever are going to truly stop a cultural practise, the only way of doing so is by cultural change. The removal of anti-FGM people from Nigeria into other countries by way of asylum is not going to help this culture shift, indeed, it slows it down as it reduces the number of effectors.

In the meantime, as the 'new' culture spreads, you still have to worry about those people who have not yet been 'assimilated' (for lack of a better world). You can either attempt to repress them and they'll go underground, or you can try to at least reduce the negative effects.

NTM

GuanYin · 26-11-2008 12:22am

OK. I've had enough of some of the stupidity here.

Just some ground rules.

1. Anyone who doesn't bother to figure out the difference between immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees and posts in this thread will be infracted.

2. Anyone who makes an argument that Ireland cannot be the first safe haven for an asylum seeker clearly hasn't bothered looking up their facts despite the issue being clarified 1 zillion times on this forum before will be infracted.

If you can't be bothered making an intelligent informed argument, you shouldn't even be trying to post here.

Those infractions may even turn to bans if you're going to be particularly obtuse.

This isn't up for discussion.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 12:35am

This post has been deleted.

HollyB · 26-11-2008 12:44am

How many others? As has been pointed out before, Ireland's population is much smaller than Nigeria's, and Nigeria is not the only country to practice FGM, far from it. There is a limit to how many people Ireland could absorb so offering a safe haven to anybody at risk - or claiming to be at risk - of FGM would not be feasible. The problem is that if one family are allowed to stay, how can we refuse the next family in a similar situation? Or the next?

You used the word "stay" in your post; just to clarify, are you suggesting that anybody who comes to Ireland claiming asylum on the grounds of FGM should be allowed to stay, or that those who are already in Ireland claiming asylum on the grounds of FGM should be allowed to remain but on the understanding that anybody coming to Ireland and applying for asylum on those grounds in the future will not be?

Permabear · 26-11-2008 1:15am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 1:44am

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran · 26-11-2008 2:57am

In scope, yes. In principle? Both are actions which are carried out due to no scientific or logical reason whatsoever except for the fact that it makes someone feel better. Hence the problems of trying to pigeonhole a belief, it requires making a subjective call as to what you, yourself, consider acceptable.

Not at all. I'm saying that relying solely on such is not going to result in total and immediate compliance. What are you going to do for those whose parents decide not to comply? Simply banning something is going to be insufficient to achieve the stated goal.

Quite a few. Still, you would have thought that with a concerted effort using all the media available to us that we can effect a change much more quickly than that. How quickly will a simple declaration of illegality result in total compliance? Are you looking to completely remove the problem, or just try to put a lid on it?

http://dictionary.die.net/effector
effector
n 1: one who brings about a result or event; one who accomplishes
a purpose [syn: effecter]

It provides an avenue of escape other than staying. Just like anything else, people will usually take the path of least resistance to themselves.

No, the new culture in this case would be one where FGM is no longer seen as acceptable and does not happen. The medical professional possibility was provided as food for thought for two logical possibilities, either as the final goal (provided as a theoretical alternative course to summary execution, civil war, or education) or as an option to reduce the harm done in the interim as the new culture takes over, given my belief that an outright declaration of "You will not do this" probably won't work, with the ultimate end result that even acts carried out in hygienic situations at a hospital are no longer sought.

You are confusing my theoretical suggestion of medical FGM being an endstate with a recommendation of it being a desired endstate. I do not think it should be the end result (personal opinion), but it is an option (possible course of action).

NTM

zap27 · 26-11-2008 10:33am

OOh look its a power mad mod. Do this or say that or else ye shall be banned! Get a life you loser:rolleyes:

Permabear · 26-11-2008 10:46am

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 26-11-2008 10:52am

Banned for a month.

djpbarry · 26-11-2008 11:45am

Indeed I do, thanks for asking. I'm just going on the figures you're providing.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 12:03pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 26-11-2008 12:24pm

It's 31% of all Nigerians over the age of 15. 17% are in full time education. A high proportion of women stay at home. You keep banging away at 31% as if its some mantra that can drown out any argument. I'd suggest a different line.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 12:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 26-11-2008 12:39pm

And isn't it true that theres a remarkable demographic difference between the Lithuanians, Poles and the Nigerians with regard to age, marital status etc?

Isn't it true that many eastern Europeans were actually brought here for specific jobs?

djpbarry · 26-11-2008 12:43pm

Let's just back up a little here, shall we:

How many of them were asylum seekers?[/QUOTE]Almost all of them.[/QUOTE] Is there anything in there you'd like to clarify?

The point that I (and Nodin) have been making is that it's not a valid comparison - it's far too simplistic. For example, Poles and Lithuanians are, for the most part, unmarried. Nigerians, for the most part, are married and it appears that only one spouse in each relationship works.

I fear we're straying a little off-topic here.

Nodin · 26-11-2008 1:09pm

Indeed, the idea being to cast a cloud over all Nigerians to lessen the legitamacy of Mrs Izevbekhai claim and to undermine support for her.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 1:30pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 1:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 26-11-2008 1:47pm

Asylum seekers are barred from working. We are obliged to deal with their claims by international treaty, as far as I'm aware.

Not only that, but it would appear the vast bulk of the cash does not go to the people themselves.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/05/04/story348179869.asp

Again, I fail to see how throwing this in anyway relates to the specifics of the case, save to try and apply guilt, and hope it spreads via association.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 1:59pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 26-11-2008 2:04pm

Suppose she appeals to the Supreme Court, and they rule that she has a case.

Would she have legitimacy then? Would the money that was spent on adjudicating her claim have been wasted then?

Nodin · 26-11-2008 2:07pm

So do I. Sheep do walk backwards, whatever they might think.

And now its going to appeal, in Europe (or the Supreme court? old age is catching up on me). Should they rule against her, she's gone.

Excellent

Permabear · 26-11-2008 2:17pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 26-11-2008 2:23pm

No it is not. Check the posts in question if you think otherwise.

I'm not going to continue to discuss the particulars of the last census because I don't think these statistics are relevant to an asylum application.

What would be an acceptable figure? We're currently spending about €70 per head per annum on processing asylum applications. How much do you think each of us should be spending to ensure that people are saved from inhumane treatment? €60? €50? At what point does the figure become acceptable?

I have already demonstrated that this figure is nonsense and yet you continue to regurgitate it. Even though it is obviously nonsense, you are standing by the assertion that only 1 in every 10,000 asylum applications from Nigerian nationals is successful?

No you haven't. You have absolutely no idea how much social welfare is claimed by Nigerians who have been successful in applying for asylum in Ireland. What you've done is lumped all Nigerian asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants into the one category because it suits your argument to do so.

What percentage of the Nigerian population in Ireland do they represent?

No it is not an apt analogy, as it was Peter who cried wolf, not somebody who happened to originate in the same country as Peter.

I'm getting a bit fed up with asking you to back up your posts with sources.

Permabear · 26-11-2008 2:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Comments