Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Am a bit shocked by your outburst there to be honest.

FGM is internationally accepted as a form of male violence to women by every reputable agency including the UN. Your own prejudices are of no interest to me.

I'm no expert on Nigerian law, but I understand that while there is no federal law against FGM, a number of states have explicitly banned the practice. Also, section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also states that "no person shall be subjected to
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment"—which, under your definition, would cover FGM.

Can you document this? Can you show that someone who requests such protection from the state would not receive it?

Yes I can document it

"Legal Status: Ref.
There is no federal laws banning FGM/FGC in Nigeria. Opponents of this practice rely on Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that states, "no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment," as the basis for banning the practice nationwide.

Protection:
We are unaware of any support groups to protect an unwilling woman or girl against this practice.
Prepared by the Office of the Senior Coordinator for International Women's Issues, Office of the Under Secretary for Global Affairs, U.S. Department of State, June 2001"

Please stop ignoring this reference!

You can only prosecute after the event of FGM. There IS NO pre-emptive protection against FGM provided by the courts, police or anyone else including NGOs in Nigeria. None.
So I can reason that anyone who did apply would be turned down as the courts and police do not have the authority to protect people from FGM before the event: only to prosecute after the torture has taken place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

Well the reality is that her judicial review challenge for "subsidiary protection" has been adjourned until January 12th, which means that she will be in Ireland at least until that time.

Actually as far as I am aware the courts have already ruled that she doesn't need to be in Ireland for the judicial review. The only reason she is still here is at the request of the European Court for Human Rights - to give them time to review the case. That was originally to have been done on 9 Dec but they asked for more time. If their decision is that Pamela's rights have not been violated under the European Convention of Human Rights then there is nothing to stop her and her daughters from being deported. Nobody knows when this decision will be made so as such she could be deported any day.

I don't think it's fair to jump on one thing Pamela has said (possibly out of context) and use it to show she is demanding and ungrateful. I can understand how it could come across as arrogant but look at it from her point of view.

If we imagine that everything she has said is true (which I know we can't prove but go with me for two minutes and then you can jump down my throat!!) and she actually witnessed her first daughter bleed to death as a result of female circumcision and several kidnap attempts on her children and had already relocated within Nigeria before fleeing to Ireland you can maybe understand that she didn't expect to have to spend four years trying to prove that her very real fear was actually very real. Leaving her husband and son and her life as she knew it was quite possibly the very last thing she wanted to do, and yet she may have felt it was her only option other than live in constant fear that the same fate that befell her first daughter would befall her other two.

I know we can't prove that this is actually the case but if it was I think it's understandable that after all she's been through she might once to one reporter say "When we came here to seek asylum we came here for protection but we are having to defend our reason for coming." I can tell you I wouldn't be so gracious!!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

If we do what Izevbekhai wants, and grant asylum to anyone who enters our country claiming to need it

I think she just wants asylum for her family, but hey youve access to the "mind" of Pamela iIenbezai

Then we will indeed be opening the floodgates

.

Have you any comment on the fact that since the seminal Fornah case in the UK where an 18 year old was granted asylum based on a well founded fear of persecution through FGM, there has only been 3 applications for asylum for this reason in the UK (in three years!!!): 1 accepted, 1 rejected, 1 under appeal?

Why didn't the floodgates open in the UK? (For a reference check out the 7-8 times ive referenced this in the thread so far)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

Outburst?

Here's a scenario: A woman is cutting out a girl's clitoris with a razor blade, with the full consent and cooperation of the girl's mother, who believes that doing so will "cleanse" her daughter. There isn't a man in the room. Where, pray tell, is the "male violence to women"?

The fact is, that this girls sexuality is being brutalised by a male dominated culture which assosiates the cliterus with female promiscuity.

If there is no male cultural wish to make women less promiscuous, then there would be no FGM in the first place.

If it helps you work it out, think of the old women who carry out the cutting as prostitutes. Think of the men leaders in the culture as pimps and human sex traffickers.

What do they mean by "support groups"? I suspect they're referring to NGOs and women's refuge–type organizations, not to the police and courts.

Again, referencing the absence of "support groups" from a 7-year-old document doesn't exactly substantiate this claim.

Nope. This is the entirety of pre-emptive protection against FGM available in Nigeria in that substantive report. (Read it through if you dont believe me)

This Report has more detail on Law in the state of Edo against FGM. Again clearly no pre-emptive supports available.

As you note yourself, the Nigerian Constitution states that "no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment." That would seem to give the courts and the police ample scope to protect someone from torture, don't you think?

The Nigerian police aren't really interested in interfering in FGM cases.
Check the internet if you dont believe me!

ismisecathy

This was a ruling that was made back on 17 November and she was served her deportation letters and was to be on a plane that Thursday with the judicial review not being heard until 16 December. Three hours after the ruling the ECHR requested that she not be deported otherwise it's fairly certain she would be in Nigeria right now.

donegalfella wrote: »

But she hasn't managed to substantiate her claims,
QUOTE]

This is the problem. How do you substantiate claims like that? What sort of proof would you ask for?

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

You seem to miss the point here. Izevbekhai is saying that Ireland should have no asylum process at all. QUOTE]

Whe did she say that?!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, and yet you criticise Ms Izenbezai for fighting to the highest court in this land? Did Ms Fornah also waste tax payers money in the UK?

You seem to miss the point here. Izevbekhai is saying that Ireland should have no asylum process at all. We should just offer protection if anyone claims to need it. You're saying that if we do as she suggests, the floodgates will not open?

She is suggesting nothing of the kind. If she wins her asylum case the UK example of 1 accepted case out of 3 applications in 3 years tells us that there will be no floodgates opening. The completely unfounded "floodgates opening" argument has been pedalled by you and other scaremongers as a rationale for refusing her asylum.

Nigeria has a population of 160 million people. The average Nigerian woman has five or six children. How many infant girls and their mothers would flock to Ireland if we started granting asylum

Your present attempt to rationalize your floodgates argument is ludicrous.

Ill say it again in the UK 1 accepted case out of 3 applications in 3 years.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah come on now! That's taking it a bit far don't you think?!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seanybiker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Shouldnt get automatic asylum just for "claiming" that will happen when they go home.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just like a final solution policy cannot physically hoard jews into a gas chamber and turn on the gas right?

Acts of violence that result from a violent tradition within a culture are invariably the responsibility of the leaders of that culture.

Sorry, but the role of a sex trafficker or a pimp is to provide women to men who wish to pay for them.

Seems to be a lot of men involved in the sex industry: Pimps traffikers and **** punters willing to pour money into an industry involved in human slavery and suffering, but according to yourself prostitution is the fault of women "prostituting themselves" right?


In the case of FGM, men are not necessarily involved at all. The violence is being done by women to other women.

Yes, just like Hitler and co. werent involved in the extermination of jews.
Well they didnt physically do it did they?

If the Nigerian police don't intervene, then it is up to the international community to press for greater protections.

They dont and agreed.

Granting asylum to every prospective "victim" is not a long-term answer here.

No, but it is a legitimate short term answer under asylum law for individuals who would otherwise end up being persecuted resulting from lack of adequate protections in Nigeria against FGM.

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for these cases to go all the way to the highest authority in the land.

I agree! There is no need for a case like this to take 4 years to settle.

"And we also need a clear precedent that no means no, not "okay, then, I guess I'll launch another appeal.""

I also agree with this. The problem unfortunately is that there are a lot of cases where the applications are refused on the first instance and granted on appeal. I don't have the exact number for this but in 2003 out of approx 800 applications granted only 300 were granted by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (first instance) the other 500 were by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal - they are shocking figures. What if those 500 hadn't appealed? What if everyone that year who was refused appealed?

What is needed is clear guidelines and a transparent process where asylum seekers can be certain that their application is being judged impartially and fairly on the first instance.

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No what she said was "When we came here to seek asylum we came here for protection but we are having to defend our reason for coming.

"It is not what I expected."

Stick to the facts. You can't assume from that that she thinks there shouldn't be any asylum seeking process in Ireland.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You previously deprecated Ms Izenbayai as bogus for using all avenues, wasting Irish taxpayers money and trying to go to the highest court in the land as Fornat did. In light of Fornahs success in the Uk do you take these deprecations back?

And which were those years, specifically?

2005-2008. Please look up th Link ive referenced before (about 7-8 times)

I don't consider myself to be a scaremonger. But I do see the problem with granting asylum automatically to any family that claims to be fleeing FGM. Don't you?

The problem, you stated, was that granting Ms Izenbayai asylum would herald the arrival of millions of Nigerian women and children seeking asylum to these shores. You also stated that the average Nigerian woman has 5-6 children to make the proposition even "more appealing".
Looks like scaremongering to me.

T runner

ismisecathy wrote: »

donegalfella wrote: »

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for these cases to go all the way to the highest authority in the land.

I agree! There is no need for a case like this to take 4 years to settle.

"And we also need a clear precedent that no means no, not "okay, then, I guess I'll launch another appeal.""

I also agree with this. The problem unfortunately is that there are a lot of cases where the applications are refused on the first instance and granted on appeal. I don't have the exact number for this but in 2003 out of approx 800 applications granted only 300 were granted by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (first instance) the other 500 were by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal - they are shocking figures. What if those 500 hadn't appealed? What if everyone that year who was refused appealed?

What is needed is clear guidelines and a transparent process where asylum seekers can be certain that their application is being judged impartially and fairly on the first instance.

This is an excellent point and this is what has happened in the UK after the Fornah case. If she hadn't persisted all the way to the Lords the UK would still be in the dark ages in respect to its asylum processes. (particularly in regard to FGM)

UrbanSea

ah now. if we were illegal immigrants in nigeria,i am certain they would have no problems getting rid of us. time for pamela to leave,we cant start hand choosing illegal immigrants to stay,just because we cant pronounce her second name on a statement of deportation

Ah come on lads, let her stay. ITS CHRISTMAS!
While we're at it, sure wouldn't the lads in the 'joy love to head home for a month or two. Sure it's Christmas after all. The time when law apparently doesn't/shouldn't REALLY matter.


Just when I thought we couldn't do worse than FF. I really, really, really am going to end up emigrating.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pipsqueak

just watch the 120seconds of this pls!!

life is too short!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

ismisecathy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know what she expected because she didn't say. If I were to guess I would say that she knew she would have to prove she had a "fear of persecution" and would be involved in some sort of asylum seeking process, after all she reported to the ORAC as soon as she got here. My guess is she didn't expect it to take four years. Perhaps she was naive as to how difficult it would be to prove that she had a "well-founded fear".

Also she said it once! Have you ever said something before that afterwards you realised didn't sound the way you meant it?

Also she has many times expressed her gratitude to Irish people who have supported her. Doesn't sound like the act of someone who feels she is entitled to just waltz into Ireland.

I don't know if any of these interpretations of this statement are right - I'm just saying that from this statement you can't automatically assume that she doesn't think there should be an asylum seeking process in Ireland.