Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Scofflaw

What a bull****ter you are!

Stooping to ad hominem attack now, are we?

That's not an ad hominem, it's an insult.

Keep it civil, people, or I will close the thread.


moderately,
Scofflaw

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

""A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

You see its a little more than just being part of a particular social group, isnt it?

Did you really think that membership of a PSG on its own was enough?
That is completely illogical. But the only person who brought that stupid argument into this discussion was you. The convention doesnt seem to bear this out.

Any chance of moving on now or are we going to have another amusingly cringe worthy effort by you to save face here?

blueythebear

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nothing was ruled in or out as a definition of social group as the 1951 Geneva Convention is not meant to be law. It is a set of guidelines for each country who sign up to it to incorporate into their own statutory framework. The Geneva Convention paints the broad brush strokes while it's up to each country to fill in the details. It couldn't work any other way as the wording would be too restrictive and this is the same of many international treaties and laws.

You're correct in saying that just because you are part of a particular social group doesn't mean that you are a refugee but I haven;t heard anyone trying to say that. I don;t think it's a logical conclusion to conclude that everyone is a potential refugee just because they're part of a particular social group as that omits the other requirements of being a refugee, ..i.e. well founded fear of persecution.

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

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.

No, between killing witnesses, raping young girls and women, beating the ****e out of journalists the Nigerian police do actually find time to visit witnesses in cases that can be embarrasing to them. The Nigerian doctor may never have written the death notice but the account he is giving now could well be influenced by more than his memory.

I genuinely hope someone gives him the 5000 for his story. Wonder did he get anything for that story already?

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Not at all, I was being serious. I believe someone who believes that FGM should not be a reason for asylum because it happens exclusively to females belongs to the lunatic right.

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.

No hes not. He didnt understand the concept of PSG in respect of FGM under the Geneva convention. Read the Geneva convention before replying.

jmcc

T runner wrote: »

Surprize, surprize you cant give an example of that.

T Runner,
That's a rather curious spelling of the word 'surprise'. Are you the one who is updating the letthemstay.org website or writing some of their press releases?

Regards...jmcc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

Not at all, I was being serious. I believe someone who believes that FGM should not be a reason for asylum because it happens exclusively to females belongs to the lunatic right.

That covers everyone apart from the LTS campaign, yourself and Valerie Solanas though.

And I accept you're serious, but if so you have pinned your ideological colours to the mast in that case and I would have to assume from this point on that your motivation is not humanitarian or intellectual, but political and thus this should noted in debate.

Read the Geneva convention before replying.

I have and agree that women can be defined as a particular social group, however I also feel that the interpretation there can not only be exaggerated, but driven by ideologically motivated interest groups - such as those you apparently support - to a ridiculous and unsustainable level.

Hence my Californian example; or are men in indentured servitude for life not worthy enough a cause for you? One Y-chromosome too many, I suspect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let me understand this; Izevbekhai has claimed that her in-laws, who are very well connected in both Nigeria and the UK, would force her daughters to have this proceedure? What evidence of this has been presented?

Otherwise, is it not a decision of the parents? That is, that there is a high risk of the parents wanting their daughters to go through the procedure?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

No, between killing witnesses, raping young girls and women, beating the ****e out of journalists the Nigerian police do actually find time to visit witnesses in cases that can be embarrasing to them. The Nigerian doctor may never have written the death notice but the account he is giving now could well be influenced by more than his memory.

I genuinely hope someone gives him the 5000 for his story. Wonder did he get anything for that story already?

Ok the, but if the Nigerian Governmental officials are that busy raping pillaging and plundering, then they could just as easliy bo too busy to bother with Dr Unokanjo. Also, and more plausible, Dr Unokanjo is telling the truth.

The fact that he has signed an affadavit is proof enough for most of the people on this forum. How about you stump up the €5000 for him, so you can hear it from the horses mouth? Then again if it was a phone interview, nay any sort of interview I'm sure you would still claim that there was some Nigerian Official lurking in the background watching him to ensure he gives out 'their' account of events. You seem completely disinterested in the facts that surround this case. You have continually bombarded us with references to this, quotes from that, which are subjectively highlighted to further your point that because there is 'no adequate state protections in Nigeria, and all Nigerian officials are corrupt' that by default they should qualify for Asylum. This logic would mean that any Nigerian woman that comes here with young girls shouting and ranting about the fear of FGM would automatically qualify for asylum - The Floodgate theory

As DF has said, they have not quantified their well founded fear of FGM should they return besides the word of one Pamela Izevbekhai who's word has already been discredited to date, and who has also gone on record to say 'Whatever I have to do to protect my children I will do'. As I have said before this is open to debate as to what she means.

Two questions:

Can you point us to where Pamela has claimed her well founded fear of FGM should she return, and where she has provided evidence of this?

Who do you believe? A respected accredited member of the Medical Profession, or someone who has already admitted to forging information in her case to further her own goals?

I know where my money is...

Article from the Belfast Telegraph

Izevbekhai lawyers expected to withdraw from case

Friday, 3 April 2009



Nigerian woman Pamela Izevbekhai is due before the Supreme Court later this morning in relation to her deportation challenge after she admitted at the weekend that forged documents were used to support her claims.
If she has not come up with evidence that she indeed had a daughter named Elizabeth who died from blood loss because of female genital mutilation, then her lawyers are expected to withdraw from the case.
Ms Izevbekhai and her two daughters have mounted a number of challenges to their deportation on the grounds that the two girls may face the same fate as their older sister Elizabeth, who they claimed had died from blood loss as a result of FGM.
They lost in the High Court earlier this year and were due to go to the Supreme Court to appeal the decision, but since then, it emerged that the medical documents were forged.
The Sligo-based Nigerian woman admitted at the weekend that her husband said he'd obtained fake documents alleging that the doctor who treated Elizabeth demanded money in exchange for the real papers.
She has insisted that Elizabeth existed and died as a result of the practice, but her lawyers are expected to withdraw their challenge at the Supreme Court later this morning.

That plus the dept of justice looking to enact the deportation order again.... looks like her game is up.

jmcc

Big_Mac wrote: »

That plus the dept of justice looking to enact the deportation order again.... looks like her game is up.

Seems that the Irish Times has nothing on this morning's SC hearing. RTE online has an article but nothing about the application by the legal team to remove themselves from the record. The Independent has this:
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/izevbekhai-lawyers-expected-to-withdraw-from-case-1696982.html

The coverage in the Irish media should be interesting, especially given the forged documents, gullible journalists and blatently biased opinion masquerading as journalism.

Regards...jmcc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It seems like a classic spin and delay move. The submission of forged documents is a very serious matter, especially when it concerns an action in the Supreme Court. The interesting aspect will be what else the State has in its submissions to the court.

Regards...jmcc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Typical grasping at straws behaviour. So. what possible 'independent' evidence can she come up with to support her claim. A photo? A family members statement?

How about the truth for a change.

A) She didn't exist, and its all a load of hog-wash

She did exist as she says, and they get a reputable birth and death certificate from the Nigerian Authorities.

Seem to be the only way.

One can only hope that the supreme court will call a halt to this farcical debacle and dismiss the appeal.

AlekSmart

The Irish Independent has learned that the Sligo-based mother needs more time to come up with "independent evidence from a different source" which she is confident will support her story.

"She is certain there is an alternative official record concerning Elizabeth, but it could take at least two weeks for her to get it," a source close to Pamela said. The source added that there was another lawyer "waiting in the wings" to take on the case if Ms Izevbekhai's lawyers came off record.

Interesting wording here.

It certainly will make for some intense cerebral activity on the Supreme Court Bench as the Judge/s attempt to cope with this latest wheeze.

I would be most surprised if a case which has taken up so much time in Legal terms could be simply side-passed to another advocate who simply waits around "In the wings" for something meaty to drop out of a passing satchel.

The Supreme Court must be very careful here if it is not to engage in a stage managed attempt to REDUCE it`s very stature in terms of the Protection it can afford to ORDINARY litigants who may have need to seek Judicial Protections.

The State has for over 4 years now facilitated Ms Izevbekhai and her legal team with every Legal courtesy imaginable and in doing so has complied with just about every guideline I can imagine relevant to the humane and sympathetic treatment of Asylum applicants.

In return,the State,Its People it`s own very basis for continuing survival has been held up to riducule and even in a manner of speaking,ransom.

Surely the Supreme Court and Minister for Justice MUST act in defence of our State and it`s Constitution now...???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The phrase Alternative is indeed interesting. There are offical records of such things, we all know that. I'm not referring to the child in question, but rather to the fact that these things and occurances are documented. How could there be alternative official records?

The dictionary definition of alternative is:

• option: one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen; "what option did I have?"; "there no other alternative"; "my only choice is to refuse"

Now, if there is one official record of something, why oh why would an authority keep multiple records of one instance to give someone 'their pick' of things. Thats rediculous

T runner

And I accept you're serious, but if so you have pinned your ideological colours to the mast in that case and I would have to assume from this point on that your motivation is not humanitarian or intellectual, but political and thus this should noted in debate.

The poster felt that FGM is not grounds for asylum because it is exclusive to women, and anyone who says otherwise is a marxist-feminist.

The poster is actually pinning his idealogical colours to the mast: Lunatic, right. I am not a marxist-feminist neither is the UN or almost every soverign country in the world who disagree with his point. I do not think right wing views are lunatic per se. I think this one is.

I have and agree that women can be defined as a particular social group, however I also feel that the interpretation there can not only be exaggerated, but driven by ideologically motivated interest groups - such as those you apparently support - to a ridiculous and unsustainable level.

What are you talking about. The interpretation of PSGs is determined by individual states. The Irish case seems to be females in danger of FGM. The American one is different again. The UK case seems to require beibg female not having FGM performed yet and membership of a FGM practicing tribe (Fornah).

I agree with these countries that FGM is a grounds for asylum if the persons involved are truly in danger of torture on their return home. The ame for any other type of torture. Wheres the exageration. Who are these organisations you claim I support?

Hence my Californian example; or are men in indentured servitude for life not worthy enough a cause for you? One Y-chromosome too many, I suspect.

Looks like a cheap shot but please clarify.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

I agree with these countries that FGM is a grounds for asylum if the persons involved are truly in danger of torture on their return home. The ame for any other type of torture. Wheres the exageration. Who are these organisations you claim I support?

And so based on this, would you also agree that any woman with young children should be granted asylum from Nigeria should they seek it here citing fear of FGM?

Yellowknife

Just heard she arrived ten minutes late! In the end the case was adjourned!

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

And so based on this, would you also agree that any woman with young children should be granted asylum from Nigeria should they seek it here citing fear of FGM?

If they are truly in danger of FGM on their return then yes without a doubt.
The same as anyone else in danger of torture on return to their country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

If they are truly in danger of FGM on their return then yes without a doubt.
The same as anyone else in danger of torture on return to their country.

And what evidence have this family provided to support their claim that they particularly are in fear of this being imposed on them should they return?

I'm not talking about the endless information that you have cited here or reports on this or that. I'm simply asking what information has Pamela specifically provided that supports her individual claim

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

RTE is reporting that the SC allowed four affidavits from the State as new evidence. Original solicitors have withdrawn and new solicitors' names have been submitted. Counsel for the State has applied to have the case dismissed. Case has been adjourned until next term but a date for the hearing has not been set.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0403/izevbekhai.html

Regards...jmcc

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No you are not you are saying that being female is not a social group and you are concluding that "It thus seems entirely within the scope of reason to argue that FGM should not qualify people for asylum status at all." BIG writing below.
You clearly do not understand how a PSG is defined by countries within the Geneva convention. You are digging. It is highly amusing but lets move on.

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.

Let's break this down into a syllogism:

—Nigerian girls have a high risk of being subjected to FGM.
—Naomi and Jemima are Nigerian girls.
—Therefore, Naomi and Jemima merit the protection of the Irish state.

You really dont understand the convention do you?

No mention whatsoever of well-founded fear, is there?

Thats easily rectified the next post just stick in well-founded fear wherever you like, you wrote this!

By your own logic, for someone to gain asylum from FGM, she must be (a) female; (b) from a tribe or society where FGM is prevalent; and (c) have a reasonable and well-founded fear that she herself will undergo FGM.

No No No. That is not the Geneva convention on human rights. For my logic read the geneva convention. The PSG that applies in Ireland is "female in danger of FGM". Thats all. The paragraph above is just another case of you trying to misrepresent me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.