Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

EnigmasWhisper

Gosh, you guys should be lawyers, indeed considering your going around in cicrcles you may very well be

Look, its simple

• It seems shes a liar
• It seems her husband is a liar
• She produced fake documents
• One or both broke the law
• The dr in question is either a liar or not a liar
• If shes deported, some people will fell sorry for the children
• If shes deported some people will feel sorry for her
• If she somehow manages to be allowed remain, people will be angry
• If she somehow manages to be allowed remain, some people will be happy
• She has created a bad image for any furture people who claim asylum here
• She has further increased the bad reputation of others from her country already here
• She has already cost us almost E500,000 in legal fees, she hasnt contributed anything towards the cost of her legal fees
• Her family are supposedly wealthy and Im sure could have paid for any costs the dr required
• She is most likely lying about money being requested
• She had a dead baby
• She didnt have a baby
• She cant give a reason why she cant request a death certificate of her alleged babies death from goverment
• Either the radio dj was a liar or the man he interviewed was a liar
• The man interviewed by the dj was either a genuine dr or not
• Ireland is no longer seen as a soft touch
• Its odd that someone seeking asylum wouldnt seek asylum in the first country she lands in :rolleyes: that country wasnt Ireland
• There are some very naive people on this thread
• There are people who are not at all naive
• It looks likely she and her family will be deported
• FGM is some small threat in Nigeria
• FGM is practised in some areas more than others (usually at the request of parents)
• If Pamela was so concerned about female mutilation, why didnt she just move to a different area
• The LetThemStay people are silly and most likely dont represent the general mindset of Irish people
• Nigerian asylum numbers have decreased substantially here in recent yrs, is FGM suddenly dissappearing ?
• Im bored of this thread, its just the same people repeating the same mantras, going around in circles

jmcc

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the key problem with Boucher-Hayes' position in this. He has been played as a mark and even the Garda investigation confirms that the individual he spoke to was not the doctor. The Gerry Ryan show appearance has destroyed Boucher-Hayes' credibility and RTE will no doubt be trying to play down the damage. I expect RTE's coverage to harden considerably if the Supreme Court grants the State's application. Some of the statements from PI's supporters will be rather extreme and very irrational over the next few days. What happens with the Irish Times could be the most interesting of all.

Regards...jmcc

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right then. Seeing as there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Dr Unokanjo is or has lying for whatever reason ('visits') I believe that we can drop the whole question surrounding his credibility. He cannot be blamed for the 'Imposter' that Boucher-Hayse spoke to, and we already know he didn't sign the death certificate. Plus he has also signed a sworn affadavit of his version of events.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

herya

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just playing the devil's advocate here but I doubt Nigerian obstetricians routinely work in English?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I took the time to watch this before, and I want my 10 minutes back. Its a well polished well made piece, but a biased piece of trash with emotive music in the background that smacks of sensationalism

My my, isn't she well educated on the Vaginal area these days, for someone who had no knowledge prior to the alleged death of Elizabeth. She also talks in great detail about the circumstances surrounding the death...

Hold the Frikkin phone here. At about 01:42 in. Didn't the Dr Unojanko imposter state in the Philip Boucher-Hays interview that he witnessed the death. She says the doctor wasn't there, and he called for Blood... How could he do that if he wasn't there? In fact, how could he have witnessed this if she claimed he wasn't there? More worryingly, how did no one pick up on this before?

The fact that Tony's face was blurred speaks volumes. Was it even him? At this stage, who knows.

Note how she conveniently avoids the fact that the aparrantly consented to the first proceedure with the alleged Elizabeth.

Tony upset someone, and it was clear that they were angry. He then deduced that Pamela needed to leave the country, rather a tad extreme don't you think?

herya

OK

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a load of bull. Please dont use the recent revelations to impose your 19th century chauvinistic extreme right clap trap on the rest of us. This is the precedent from the house of Lords. The fact that FGM is recognised as a male violence practiced against women Im sure will make grim reading for you.
(After all you previously argued on this thread that women were responsible for FGM and prostitution)

The House of Lords panel of five judges led by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, set to look at the meaning of ‘a particular social group’ (PSG) only and whether the appellant was a member of a PSG.

In their opinion, the judges referred to a number of authorities in relation to MPSG, including domestic (R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex p Shah and Islam [1999] 2 AC 629) and international decisions (such as re Acosta) and an analytical review of approaches adopted worldwide by T A Aleinikoff entitled ‘Protected characteristics and social perceptions: an analysis of the meaning of “membership of a particular social group”;5 they also referred to the relevant definitions provided by UNHCR and the European Union Council Directive 2004/83/EC (29 April 2004) which came into force in the UK on 10 October 2006.

The House of Lords stated that FGM has been widely recognised as persecution for a Convention reason in decisions across the world but also in the UK (par. 27, par. 108) and questioned why the case had to reach that level of appeal in the UK in the first place.

However, looking at Fornah in particular, the judges are unanimous in recognising that either ‘all women in Sierra Leone’ (par. 31), or ‘intact or uninitiated women and girls who are in tribes in SL which practice FGM’ (par. 71, 72), i.e. women who have not undergone FGM, constitute a particular social group of which Fornah is a member, because, as women, they are discriminated against in Sierra Leonean society. Relying on what he describes as ‘undisputed evidence’, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, proposed a wider definition of the social group:

‘par. 31. …I think it clear that women in Sierra Leone are a group of persons sharing a common characteristic, which, without a fundamental change in social mores is unchangeable, namely a position of social inferiority as compared with men. They are perceived by society as inferior. That is true of all women, those who accept or willingly embrace their inferior position and those who do not. To define the group in this way is not to define it by reference to the persecution complained of: it is a characteristic which would exist even if FGM were not practised, although FGM is an extreme and very cruel expression of male dominance’.

Some judges preferred the narrower definition of PSG that excluded women who had already undergone FGM (see for instance par. 56, 114, 119) but even then, they clearly stated that they were not in disagreement with the wider definition of the group as ‘all women in Sierra Leone’.

The House of Lords is therefore unanimous in holding that:

1. The characteristics of the group are the fact that members of this group are female and as such are ‘perceived by society as inferior’ (par. 31) or discriminated against and targeted for FGM (‘The harm is ‘gender-specific’… in other words, "but for" being a woman, the persons concerned could not be selected as victims of the practice’, par. 74) and if in favour of the narrower definition,

2. That they belong to certain tribes, which practice FGM.

These, they say, constitute immutable characteristics that exist independently of FGM and fulfil the requirements of the definition of MPSG under the Refugee Convention and in particular as defined in paragraph 11 of the UNHCR Guidelines on Membership of a Particular Social Group (7 May 2002),6 which is quoted by Baroness Hale (par. 100). The Lords stressed that it is because of their characteristics and of the discriminatory position of women in a society where ‘patriarchy is deeply entrenched’ (par. 54) that uninitiated or intact women are forced to undergo FGM:

‘FGM may ensure a young woman’s acceptance in Sierra Leonean society, but she is accepted on the basis of institutionalised inferiority. … FGM is an extreme expression of the discrimination to which all women in Sierra Leone are subject, as much those who have already undergone the process as those who have not.’ (par. 31, see also par. 79).

The House of Lords further adds that women in Sierra Leone who oppose FGM have no means to seek protection from the State authorities or legal redress against the practice (par. 54, p. 69).


Circulatory argument rejected
Thus the House of Lords categorically rejects the Court of Appeal’s circulatory argument according to which the group to which Fornah contended to belong (‘young Sierra Leonean women who [had] not undergone female genital mutilation’) is defined by the persecutory act (par. 78); and that that social group did not have immutable characteristics because women who submit to FGM are not at further risk and that the practice is ‘accepted and/or regarded as traditional and part of one’s cultural life’, and thus cannot be considered discriminatory. The House of Lords held that it cannot be argued that because FGM is a one-off act, it does not constitute persecution for a Convention reason. First the reasoning is fallacious because it defines the group on the basis of the risk of persecution; but even if the group is defined by the fact that women are ‘intact’, it remains that it is the characteristics of the group, gender, ethnicity and intactness, which make them subject to that particular form of persecution, not the persecution that leads to these characteristics (par. 113).

Also contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision, it held that the fact that the practice is widely accepted or widespread is of no relevance, nor is the fact that the practice is being performed or accepted by other women (par. 31, 57-58, 81, 109, 110). Furthermore, the House of Lords held that it is wrong to reject the group definition that includes all women in Sierra Leone because not all its members are at risk, pointing to the fact that some members may be under social pressure to submit to a particular form of persecution, like FGM, or may escape persecution for various reasons as already recognised in Shah and Islam (par. 55-56). Lord Rodger of Earlsferry holds:

‘(par. 75) While it is not necessary that all members of the social group in question are persecuted before one can say that people are persecuted for reasons of their membership of the group, it is necessary that all members of the group should be susceptible to the persecution in question’.

The House of Lords also holds that, whilst the persecution cannot solely define a particular social group, some persecution like FGM can be a factor in identifying a PSG, and that this is not inconsistent with the Convention and current legal interpretations: ‘(par. 120) Assume that albinos were openly persecuted simply because of their appearance. Could it really be said that they were outside the protection of the Convention? Plainly not.’

(par. 79) In particular reference to the case of Fornah, the House of Lords stated that ‘actions of those who persecute these women by mutilating them certainly serve to reinforce the identity of the particular social group of intact and uninitiated women.’

Crucially the House of Lords holds that they accepted the definition of a particular social group as contained in paragraph 11 of the UNHCR 2002 Guidelines and that they expected any Regulations brought into force under the EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC to be interpreted consistently with this definition (par. 118).

Gender persecution – a human rights issues recognised by international law
RWRP welcomes the fact that Baroness Hale took the opportunity to highlight issues to do with gender-related or gender specific persecution in general. In particular she points to the fact that the Refugee Convention is one of very few international human rights law instruments, which does not list sex amongst the reasons for persecution or discrimination. Importantly, she stresses that gender persecution should raise rights to international protection not only under the Refugee Convention but also other international instruments (par. 86):

‘States parties to the Refugee Convention, at least if they are also parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, are obliged to interpret and apply the Refugee Convention compatibly with the commitment to gender equality in those two instruments.’

She thus proceeds to explain how FGM constitutes a human rights issue within not only the meaning of article 3 of the ECHR but also article 1 or 16 of the of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Looks like the apparant existence of Elizabeth and Adrian are simply MacGuffins at this stage

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

Would it? Can you quote references to where it has been proven that it is common place for Nigerian officials to intimidate members of the Nigerian medical profession?

Not specifically the medical profession but I have on several occasions quoted from COI reports stating that Nigerian Officials use intimidation as a common tactic. This is usually carried out on the Nigerian media some of whom have been badly assaulted. It is stated that the Nigerian police force murder and rape with impunity, that many "witnesses" have died in custody. I dont think the fact that they are dealing with a doctor would stop them from the usual tactics that they carry out when someone is saying something they donet like.

AlekSmart

The fact that FGM is recognised as a male violence practiced against women Im sure will make grim reading for you.

Hmmmm,this statement takes us well out from the shore in our little row-boat as it appears to veer us off in the direction of a far wider issue than the Izevbekhai case and its ramifications.

FGM may well be recognized as what T Runner sez it is by SOME,including their Noble Lordships,however for others,particularly those of certain African tribes,it may well be a totally different issue.

I for one am not going to sit here in Ireland and offer a judgement upon it.

As a TRIBAL custom,FGM must rely on a degree of Common acceptance and participation by the greater members of those Tribes which practice it.

Are Those members of Nigerian Tribes which do NOT practice or endorse FGM then expressly outside the pale of Irish Asylum application even if there may be OTHER oppressive forces arraigned against them ?

Or is it becoming dependent now upon an expressly feminist arguement as to whether a Nigerian`s Asylum application has validity or not ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

What a load of bull. Please dont use the recent revelations to impose your 19th century chauvinistic extreme right clap trap on the rest of us.

I see the humanitarian mask has finally been ditched in favour of your ideological true face. I was wondering how long that would take.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

Not specifically the medical profession but I have on several occasions quoted from COI reports stating that Nigerian Officials use intimidation as a common tactic. This is usually carried out on the Nigerian media some of whom have been badly assaulted. It is stated that the Nigerian police force murder and rape with impunity, that many "witnesses" have died in custody. I dont think the fact that they are dealing with a doctor would stop them from the usual tactics that they carry out when someone is saying something they donet like.

The fact that the reports you have quoted previously state that Nigerian officials use it as a common tactic against the media is not relevent to this. Sure, you may think it is, but that doesn't make it so. The suggestion that officals have intimidated the doctor into making false statements this time around, or the suggestion that they are responsible for him now refusing to speak is a load of claptrap. This is based on the admittance of Pamela to submitting forged documentation, the questionable if not now preposterous interview with the so called doctor by Philip Boucher-hayes, amongst many other things

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what he needs is to work in nigeria for a while!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a load of nonsense. Stop misrepresenting me. I am interested in official Nigerias contacts with the doctor and officila Nigerias contacts with Official Ireland. I am interested in how and why a minister of the republic of Ireland can state that FGM is "not a problem" in NIgeria.

I am extremely concerned as to how the current revelations might affet other asylum seekers and the ministers comments are fueling my concern. The minister seems to be using the furore surrounding the revelations to imply that the Nigerian State is capable of dealing with FGM which it patently is not. Please dont misrepresent me again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see the humanitarian mask has finally been ditched in favour of your ideological true face. I was wondering how long that would take.

Incorrect. The poster implied that the inclusion of FGM as a grounds for asylum was somehow part of a marxist/feminist plot.
To point out that this is ludicrous doesnt make me a marxist/feminist does it?

The social groups that qualify FGM vary from country to country. Irelands interpretation of that social group is probably at variance to Britains. But it has long being accepted that women under threat of FGM do indeed qualify for asylum under the Geneva convention.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The House of Lords held that "it is because of their characteristics and of the discriminatory position of women in a society where ‘patriarchy is deeply entrenched’ (par. 54) that uninitiated or intact women are forced to undergo FGM:".

Women are conditioned by their society to perform these tasks. The report from the Lords states the fact that women are the ones chosen to carry FGM out as not relevant.

This is a position shared by the UN and almost every country in the world. Only the most chauvinistic outlook could blame females for FGM. (The same outlook that would blame prostitutes for the sex industry perhaps?).

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are trying to argue that women should not qualify for protection against FGM.

I note that my position is consistent with legal precedent in the UK and elsewhere. In your haste to boldface all the parts that suited your position, you overlooked the fact that gender in and of itself does not constitute a social group and is not sufficient to establish asylum status. The women who claim to be fleeing FGM must also belong to tribes that practice it.

donegalfella wrote: »

Women fleeing FGM would seem to qualify for asylum only if it can be argued that being female constitutes "membership of a particular social group." This is a highly contestable proposition, since being female places one in a biological category, not a social one. Only when one politicizes the very idea of gender to arrive at the Marxist-feminist notion of "female solidarity" do women—including even baby girls—emerge as a coherent, self-identifying social group that excludes men.

It thus seems entirely within the scope of reason to argue that FGM should not qualify people for asylum status at all.

So your position is consistant withy legal precedent in the UK and other places "that FGM should not qualify people for asylum status at all". Thats not the legal position of the UK or almost anywhere else is it? What a bull****ter you are!

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

I am interested in how and why a minister of the republic of Ireland can state that FGM is "not a problem" in NIgeria.

There is no evidence to suggest that any form of 'official' interference has occurred with Dr Unokanjo. Interesting though it may be, there is no point in discussing it, as the grounds for this are baseless

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

Incorrect. The poster implied that the inclusion of FGM as a grounds for asylum was somehow part of a marxist/feminist plot.
To point out that this is ludicrous doesnt make me a marxist/feminist does it?

Are you saying that you were simply being ironic when you accused him of "19th century chauvinistic extreme right clap trap" and that it was not a true accusation? If not, then you were pushing an ideological viewpoint.

You are trying to argue that women should not qualify for protection against FGM.

I think he is arguing that it should not fall into the category of asylum protection. Otherwise I might suggest that we should grant asylum to male Californian divorcees too.

The Corinthian

Big_Mac wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that any form of 'official' interference has occurred with Dr Unokanjo. Interesting though it may be, there is no point in discussing it, as the grounds for this are baseless

It's not baseless - more correctly it is completely speculative and based upon existing evidence, more likely than not to be baseless. But not definitely baseless.

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that any form of 'official' interference has occurred with Dr Unokanjo. Interesting though it may be, there is no point in discussing it, as the grounds for this are baseless

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Nigerian Authorities interfere in cases which embarrass the Nigerian government.
The gardai are careful not to mention contact with the Nigerian police. Someone should ask them.

jmcc

T runner wrote: »

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Nigerian Authorities interfere in cases which embarrass the Nigerian government.
The gardai are careful not to mention contact with the Nigerian police. Someone should ask them.

The Gardai interviewed the doctor, established that the doctor is not the individual interviewed by the gormless and gullible Boucher-Hayes. The documents used in the court cases were forged. What do you think that the Supreme Court will do tomorrow?

Regards...jmcc

blueythebear

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You should realise that the Refugee Act 1996 speficially includes gender as a particular social group:

According to Section 1 i)


"membership of a particular social group" includes membership of a trade union and also includes membership of a group of persons whose defining characteristic is their belonging to the female or the male sex or having a particular sexual orientation;

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Nigerian Authorities interfere in cases which embarrass the Nigerian government.
The gardai are careful not to mention contact with the Nigerian police. Someone should ask them.

If there is embarassment to be had here for the Nigerian Government it is as a result of Pamela's fabrication of evidence that paints a negative picture of Nigeria, which has now been recinded due to recent revelations. Did the Nigerian Government force her to falsify her documentation? Methinks not. Given that we know that the Doctor is telling the truth, the embarassment here is with Pamela and not the Nigerian Government. Why would they intimidate a doctor into telling the truth?

Indeed, a consulant gynacologist would be very easily able to relocate himself to another hospital in another area, or perhaps in another country (I'm open to corretion on the legalities of this) should he have been put in fear for telling the truth. One can logically conclude that this is a particularly learned gentlemen who would be able to work this out. Would he really put his medical career on the line for this?

Or, is Nigeria so corrupt that they will follow him wherever he goes and he will never be safe wherever he goes? Surely the Nigerian Government would have better things to do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surprize, surprize you cant give an example of that.



Wrong. I said that being female per se does not qualify one for asylum status under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Women must argue that they are being persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group. In some cases, that entails resorting to the Marxist-feminist logic of gender oppression.

This is why I accused you of bull****ting: This is what you said~:

donegalfella wrote: »

Women fleeing FGM would seem to qualify for asylum only if it can be argued that being female constitutes "membership of a particular social group." This is a highly contestable proposition, since being female places one in a biological category, not a social one. Only when one politicizes the very idea of gender to arrive at the Marxist-feminist notion of "female solidarity" do women—including even baby girls—emerge as a coherent, self-identifying social group that excludes men.

It thus seems entirely within the scope of reason to argue that FGM should not qualify people for asylum status at all.

OK? You didnt understand how the Genava Convention is applied for FGM cases, you messed up.

It is accepted that women from an FGM-practicing tribe constitute a "particular social group" under the terms of the Geneva convention.

Dont you get it. This is accepted in the UK.

In Ireland it seems to be females in danger of FGM.

You continue to ignore the fact that Jemima and Naomi Izevbekhai do not belong to a tribe, and cannot claim asylum under the Geneva Convention simply by virtue of being girls.

How could they possibly claim asylum simply by being girls? There has to be a threat of torture. The PSG in Ireland seems to be "females in danger of FGM".
If you feel that the fact that FGM cannot be practiced on males is unfair and sexist then write a strongly worded letter to the UN. They will probably agree with you until they discover your warped conclusion that this should dissallow females under threat of torture from FGM from seeking asylum.

BTW The girls are part of their fathers tribe as Nigeria is very much Patriarchal. I believe this ground has been covered before and I believe his tribe carry out FGM.

"The discriminatory position of women in a society where ‘patriarchy is deeply entrenched’"—isn't that Marxist-feminist rhetoric?

Is it? Or is it just a fact about society in Sierre Leone and other countries that practice recognised by everyone including the UN and only disputed by the most chauvanist contratrians: (The type of idiots likely to blame women for the prostitution industry.)

Oh, come on. If I argue that I have been "conditioned by society" to steal cars and sell drugs, does that make it acceptable for me to do so?

Ofcourse not. Society here conditions us to believe that stealing cars and selling drugs is wrong.

Society in certain countries conditions people to believe that FGM makes a girl "clean" for her husband or for other religious reasons.

There is also the significant physical effect that women cannot enjoy sex when their cliterus is cut off and are viewed (by the patriarchal society) as less likely to be promiscuous.

As I explained above, I am arguing that being female per se does not constitute grounds for claiming protection under the 1951 Geneva Convention.

And your own quote determines that to be backtracking weak nonsense. Once more with feeling: (or did you not state this?)

donegalfella wrote: »

It thus seems entirely within the scope of reason to argue that FGM should not qualify people for asylum status at all.