Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Options
1…8182848687…99

Comments

  • Options
    #2492
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Indeed and which presumably would involve any group not slicing bits off of childrens genitals? Or do you think that is all OK unless it's Africans doing it whereupon it becomes Evil?

    What has this got to do with the non-case of Pamela Izevbekhai? Her case was based on fraud and will be dismissed very soon.


  • Options
    #2493
    blueythebear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mealone43 wrote: »
    cultural/ethnic diversity. quote]
    Well now we have to change to suit the immigrants?????? over my dead body. They should conform to our customs and traditions or else go back to their homes.:mad::mad:

    I think people are missing the point here. Different cultures are perfectly acceptable in Ireland as long as the practise of these cultures do not infringe any laws. The same goes for any Irish person in any other country.

    Thus, if a Nigerian comes over here and has his male or female child circumcised, they can do so as long as they obey the laws of the land and if it is carried out by a professional competent person in the correct envrionment, i.e. by a doctor in a hospital.

    The point about asylum seekers and FGM is that it is forced on certain individuals by family or by their local community. Any kind of invasive surgical procedure peformed on you against your will constitutes an assault and would consitute persecution for the purpose of the definition of a refugee under the 1952 Convention on Refugees.

    I do not agree with the above sentiment that immigrants (be they refugees or other type of migrant) have to conform to our traditions and customs or get out of Ireland. THat's a ridiculous view and incredibly narrow minded. I would hope that the particular poster meant to say that people should obey our laws rather than adopt our customs and traditions. I doubt any moslem persons living in Ireland would be too happy with the prospect of being forced to go for a few pints in order to conform to "our customs and traditions"!


  • Options
    #2494
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Indeed and which presumably would involve any group not slicing bits off of childrens genitals? Or do you think that is all OK unless it's Africans doing it whereupon it becomes Evil?
    You are talking nonsense now matey cock


  • Options
    #2495
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    blueythebear wrote: »
    I think people are missing the point here. Different cultures are perfectly acceptable in Ireland as long as the practise of these cultures do not infringe any laws. The same goes for any Irish person in any other country.

    Thus, if a Nigerian comes over here and has his male or female child circumcised, they can do so as long as they obey the laws of the land and if it is carried out by a professional competent person in the correct envrionment, i.e. by a doctor in a hospital.

    The point about asylum seekers and FGM is that it is forced on certain individuals by family or by their local community. Any kind of invasive surgical procedure peformed on you against your will constitutes an assault and would consitute persecution for the purpose of the definition of a refugee under the 1952 Convention on Refugees.

    I do not agree with the above sentiment that immigrants (be they refugees or other type of migrant) have to conform to our traditions and customs or get out of Ireland. THat's a ridiculous view and incredibly narrow minded. I would hope that the particular poster meant to say that people should obey our laws rather than adopt our customs and traditions. I doubt any moslem persons living in Ireland would be too happy with the prospect of being forced to go for a few pints in order to conform to "our customs and traditions"!
    Well if I go to Nigeria I must obey their rules and likewise they , ours and diotto fo all countries. I personally may be narrow minded but I am Irish and my forefathers and I built this country and I will demand that immigrants ,welcome or unwelcome will abide by our rules. I dont like some of their traditions and i find them repugnant. Like homosexuality , if it is practiced in private and not under my nose then I have no problem with it. If they ever become a majority then we will have to abide by their rules. Now is the time to copperfasten our rules so that they will be changed easily. We should learn a lesson fro our neighbours who sat back while the immigrants changed rules. Now they are demanding Shira Law in parts of Britain. Next they will demand that a young girl marries an old pervert as that is custom in some of their countries.


  • Options
    #2496
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mealone43 wrote: »
    We should learn a lesson fro our neighbours who sat back while the immigrants changed rules. Now they are demanding Shira Law in parts of Britain. Next they will demand that a young girl marries an old pervert as that is custom in some of their countries.

    A Christian English bishop remarked that one might eventually see Sharia law used in some civil cases. This is because you can have some civil cases judged under Orthodox Jewish law, in the Beth Din courts, which were established over 100 years ago. As they can't override or breach ordinary civil law, its much hysteria about nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2497
    blueythebear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Well if I go to Nigeria I must obey their rules and likewise they , ours and diotto fo all countries. I personally may be narrow minded but I am Irish and my forefathers and I built this country and I will demand that immigrants ,welcome or unwelcome will abide by our rules. I dont like some of their traditions and i find them repugnant. Like homosexuality , if it is practiced in private and not under my nose then I have no problem with it. If they ever become a majority then we will have to abide by their rules. Now is the time to copperfasten our rules so that they will be changed easily. We should learn a lesson fro our neighbours who sat back while the immigrants changed rules. Now they are demanding Shira Law in parts of Britain. Next they will demand that a young girl marries an old pervert as that is custom in some of their countries.

    Your first two sentences started out okay in principal although not in their tone. I agree and previously said that everyone must obey the laws of the land in which they are in.

    After this, I'm not sure what happened. What has homosexuality got to do with this? Homosexuality is not an aspect of any particular ethnic group's culture, it is a sexual preference and is totally irrelevant here.

    By "they" becoming a majority, I presume you mean immigrants? If immigrants do become a majority over here (which won't ever happen but for arguments sake let's say it will), "they" still won't get a vote unless "they" become naturalised Irish citizens, by which time "they" will no longer be immigrants, rather Irish Citizens. The only way to change the rules for the country is by way of referendum, i.e. a vote to change the constitution. Otherwise, new rules/laws can be brought about by way of drafting new legislation in the Dáil or the Seanad, which is voted for by our politicians, who are....you guessed it, voted in by Irish Citizens!

    Anyhoo, this whole Pamela Izevhebekhi story has gotten way out of hand. I hear people saying we should bring in specific laws outlawing FGM in Ireland and on the other side I'm hearing people saying that FGM should not be a ground for asylum. People need to step back a bit. FGM would be an assault if carried out agianst the will of the child and/or a parent so our laws cover it under the law against assault. FOr the same reason it constitutes persecution under asylum law so that it is a ground for asylum if the refugee fears it. From there it's up to the particular refugee to prove that it's liable to happen to them if they're returned and that their fear is well grounded.


  • Options
    #2498
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #2499
    blueythebear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Oh yeah, good point. THat somewhat conveniently slipped my mind! My point still stands though, immigrants can't bring in "their rules" without going through the standard democratic processes. The proportions of immigrants to Irish Citizens would not change to the extent that Sharia law could be voted in in Ireland. It's a ludicrous reason for suggesting tighter immigration rules.


  • Options
    #2500
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Nodin wrote: »
    A Christian English bishop remarked that one might eventually see Sharia law used in some civil cases. This is because you can have some civil cases judged under Orthodox Jewish law, in the Beth Din courts, which were established over 100 years ago. As they can't override or breach ordinary civil law, its much hysteria about nothing.
    What do we care about some English Christian Bishop? Our laws are the only valid laws and not some camel law


  • Options
    #2501
    blueythebear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mealone43 wrote: »
    What do we care about some English Christian Bishop? Our laws are the only valid laws and not some camel law

    And now we get to your real thoughts... That's an idiotic comment and I'm presuming you'll be reprimanded or banned by the moderators. I hope to God you're just some kid who thought you were being funny. That wouldn't be so bad if it's just youthful inappropriateness. If you're a grown adult, then God help us all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2502
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mealone43 wrote: »
    What do we care about some English Christian Bishop? Our laws are the only valid laws and not some camel law

    I'm clarifying the facts re your earlier post. However, as its inadvertently revealed exactly where your coming from, I don't feel it was entirely a waste of my time.


  • Options
    #2503
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    blueythebear wrote: »
    And now we get to your real thoughts... That's an idiotic comment and I'm presuming you'll be reprimanded or banned by the moderators. I hope to God you're just some kid who thought you were being funny. That wouldn't be so bad if it's just youthful inappropriateness. If you're a grown adult, then God help us all.
    Seeing that you dont understand. I dont think it is any of our business what an English Bishop thinks or how relevent it is to our country and by camel law I mean stupid Islamic laws that allow husnabnds rape their wives. Or have you not read the papers lately? I lived in an Islamic country and I know how backward their laws are. So dont chastise me for stating what is true. So what exactly is your problem with my post?


  • Options
    #2504
    zynaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    mealone43 wrote: »
    So what exactly is your problem with my post?
    The fact that 'camel law' is a needlessly offensive and derogatory term which does nothing to further your arguments. However, I would agree that Shariah 'law' in particular is an atrocious set of moral dictates which encourages people to do awful things to each other and discriminates against women in horrendous and violent ways, at the disturbed whims of patriarchal tribal elders.

    Shariah law has no place in Ireland, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.


  • Options
    #2505
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Seeing that you dont understand. I dont think it is any of our business what an English Bishop thinks or how relevent it is to our country and by camel law I mean stupid Islamic laws that allow husnabnds rape their wives. Or have you not read the papers lately? I lived in an Islamic country and I know how backward their laws are. So dont chastise me for stating what is true. So what exactly is your problem with my post?

    You lived in one of how many Islamic states? Personally I've lived and worked in four, and each one was more liberal than Ireland... So stop generalising.


  • Options
    #2506
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Mena wrote: »
    You lived in one of how many Islamic states? Personally I've lived and worked in four, and each one was more liberal than Ireland... So stop generalising.
    So you never worked in Saudi then? Obviously you did not if you say that THEY are liberal. Libya is another country I worked in and I know that it is more liberal but still backwards in law by our standars and not very liberal. Maybe your muslim countries were more liberal than Ireland and I would like to know which ones they were. Personally I do not believe it.


  • Options
    #2507
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    zynaps wrote: »
    The fact that 'camel law' is a needlessly offensive and derogatory term which does nothing to further your arguments. However, I would agree that Shariah 'law' in particular is an atrocious set of moral dictates which encourages people to do awful things to each other and discriminates against women in horrendous and violent ways, at the disturbed whims of patriarchal tribal elders.

    Shariah law has no place in Ireland, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

    OK Camel is now withdrawn as it may cause offence to somebody and we will substitute barbaric , atrocious, immoral,unhuman etc etc. That ok now?


  • Options
    #2508
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    mealone43 wrote: »
    So you never worked in Saudi then? Obviously you did not if you say that THEY are liberal. Libya is another country I worked in and I know that it is more liberal but still backwards in law by our standars and not very liberal. Maybe your muslim countries were more liberal than Ireland and I would like to know which ones they were. Personally I do not believe it.

    I've worked in Saudi, and would never, in a million years describe it as "liberal"...

    My point is that not all Middle Eastern states run strict sharia law at all. Try the UAE and Bahrain for a start.


  • Options
    #2509
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Mena wrote: »
    I've worked in Saudi, and would never, in a million years describe it as "liberal"...

    My point is that not all Middle Eastern states run strict sharia law at all. Try the UAE and Bahrain for a start.
    Ok I agree not all Middle East countries are bad.


  • Options
    #2510
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Anybody know when "she" is being returned to Nigeria? Wish it was soon so that we can talk about something else .lol


  • Options
    #2511
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Anybody know when "she" is being returned to Nigeria? Wish it was soon so that we can talk about something else .lol


    Yes I'd like to move on to talk about the possibility of getting yourself deported in place of those little girls. The two of them for one of you seems like a really good deal to my mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2512
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Seeing that you dont understand. I dont think it is any of our business what an English Bishop thinks or how relevent it is to our country and by camel law I mean stupid Islamic laws that allow husnabnds rape their wives.

    You stated
    We should learn a lesson fro our neighbours who sat back while the immigrants changed rules. Now they are demanding Shira Law in parts of Britain.

    I pointed out that "they" did not change any laws, that a christian Bishop merely mentioned the possibility, and that there have been Jewish religous courts for over a century. I also pointed out that these courts cannot override civil law as it stands, so the nonsense about raping wives and underage marriage don't apply.

    Are we clear now?


  • Options
    #2513
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Yes I'd like to move on to talk about the possibility of getting yourself deported in place of those little girls. The two of them for one of you seems like a really good deal to my mind.
    Dont start me, fool


  • Options
    #2514
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Nodin wrote: »
    You stated

    I pointed out that "they" did not change any laws, that a christian Bishop merely mentioned the possibility, and that there have been Jewish religous courts for over a century. I also pointed out that these courts cannot override civil law as it stands, so the nonsense about raping wives and underage marriage don't apply.

    Are we clear now?
    Wife rape and paedophiles marrying kids are nonsense? Wow what an attitude.


  • Options
    #2515
    blueythebear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Seeing that you dont understand. I dont think it is any of our business what an English Bishop thinks or how relevent it is to our country and by camel law I mean stupid Islamic laws that allow husnabnds rape their wives. Or have you not read the papers lately? I lived in an Islamic country and I know how backward their laws are. So dont chastise me for stating what is true. So what exactly is your problem with my post?

    My problem with your post is the use of the term "camel laws". It doesn't offend me personally but it does suggest that you are xenophobic and immature and/or not particularly intelligent. You could have easily have just said Sharia law...

    I don't disagree that in our eyes, sharia law is somewhat backward. Maybe it isn't to those who practise it. I don't know, I can't possibly comment on the mindset of a whole country's population.

    "Wife rape and paedophiles marrying kids are nonsense? Wow what an attitude."

    I believe the poster said that it was nonsense to claim that sharia law can replace ordinary criminal and civil law in this country. Therefore even if Sharia law allows these things, it does not trump criminal and civil law so that raping of wives and paedophilia would still be illegal regardless of what Sharia law might say. I would have thought the point made was quite clear but obviously you didn't quite get it.


  • Options
    #2516
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Wife rape and paedophiles marrying kids are nonsense? Wow what an attitude.

    No, the nonsense is implying that it could be allowed....


  • Options
    #2517
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, the nonsense is implying that it could be allowed....
    Not implied. Watch the new man. Keep up to date. Also it is a fact of life that grown men marry kids in some of those countries


  • Options
    #2518
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    blueythebear wrote: »
    My problem with your post is the use of the term "camel laws". It doesn't offend me personally but it does suggest that you are xenophobic and immature and/or not particularly intelligent. You could have easily have just said Sharia law...

    I don't disagree that in our eyes, sharia law is somewhat backward. Maybe it isn't to those who practise it. I don't know, I can't possibly comment on the mindset of a whole country's population.

    "Wife rape and paedophiles marrying kids are nonsense? Wow what an attitude."

    I believe the poster said that it was nonsense to claim that sharia law can replace ordinary criminal and civil law in this country. Therefore even if Sharia law allows these things, it does not trump criminal and civil law so that raping of wives and paedophilia would still be illegal regardless of what Sharia law might say. I would have thought the point made was quite clear but obviously you didn't quite get it.
    YAAAAAAAAAAWN


  • Options
    #2519
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    mealone43, if you've nothing of value to contribute, don't post. And don't mistake this for a request.


  • Options
    #2520
    mealone43
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭mealone43


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    mealone43, if you've nothing of value to contribute, don't post. And don't mistake this for a request.
    Whats your problem man?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2521
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    mealone43 wrote: »
    Whats your problem man?
    People who don't think the rules apply to them. Take a week off, and when you come back, read the charter before posting again.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement