Pamela Enitan Izevbekhai

Big_Mac

Which cases would you single out for special treatment?

Sueme: Those with Children

Sueme:
There is no evidence to suggest it would cause a flood of asylum seekers claiming the same issues

Sorry, but I disagree. Cast your minds back to a few years ago. Asylum seekers were coming to this country already pregnant to have their children here. As a result the child was an Irish citizen, and so the parent automatically got citizenship until the legislation was changed. People found a loophole and exploited it. I fear the same thing would happen here. Sure Ireland isn't the Celtic tiger is once was, but I'm sure they would have a better standard of living here than in their own country, so that alone would be incentive enough to want to stay here.

HollyB: They can do it if they so choose. However, I certainly don't think that it should be allowed to make a difference to their case, one way or another. If they fail to secure refugee status, then the court of public opinion should not be allowed to overturn the verdict.
Sueme: I agree.

Excuse my ignorance here but isn't that what's going on. She's taking this to the court of human rights and rallying as much public support as she can, why do this if not to get the court of public opinion involved to try to sway the decision?

TequilaMockingBird

Big_Mac wrote: »

[/I]



Sorry, but I disagree. Cast your minds back to a few years ago. Asylum seekers were coming to this country already pregnant to have their children here. As a result the child was an Irish citizen, and so the parent automatically got citizenship until the legislation was changed. People found a loophole and exploited it. I fear the same thing would happen here. Sure Ireland isn't the Celtic tiger is once was, but I'm sure they would have a better standard of living here than in their own country, so that alone would be incentive enough to want to stay here.

At the moment I think its actually our generous social welfare system which would be attractive to an economic migrant. Loopholes can be closed Big Mac. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Big_Mac wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance here but isn't that what's going on. She's taking this to the court of human rights and rallying as much public support as she can, why do this if not to get the court of public opinion involved to try to sway the decision?

As can any other Joe Soap, there is nothing stopping any other asylum seeker doing the same. Again, she has this option, so why would she not take it?

Big_Mac

sueme wrote: »

As can any other Joe Soap, there is nothing stopping any other asylum seeker doing the same. Again, she has this option, so why would she not take it?

What I don't understand is that you are saying that you agree the cases should be judged on merit and you also agree that the court of public opionin should not be involved

How can you advocate someone who is doing just that? (all moral issues aside here)

TequilaMockingBird

Big_Mac wrote: »

What I don't understand is that you are saying that you agree the cases should be judged on merit and you also agree that the court of public opionin should not be involved

How can you advocate someone who is doing just that? (all moral issues aside here)

The cases should be judged according to the law, but is the criteria used correct? For us, it is a free country, we can shout if we think something is wrong, which is what is happening here.

Court of Public Opinion? No, its the electorate saying they don't agree with the current law/procedures. The government of the moment can make laws, we don't have to agree or accept them. The pensioners recently reminded us of that.

Big_Mac

Regardless of her personal experiences, I think this case should be dealt with rationally. The woman entered the country illegally and is an illegal immigrant. If the courts set a precedent and then 10 more ppl give the same excuse of FGM, should they all stay? Well, they're going to have to if we pass on her case.

And of course the news that she would be allowed stay would be international and show the world that we're a soft touch when it comes to illegal immigration, so "10 more ppl" would be a gross understatement. I feel sorry for the kids but the argument that "ooh we'll just allow it for her, the poor woman" doesnt hold weight because it sets a dangerous precedent that plenty of illegal immigrants would follow.

What's everyone elses thoughts? I'm glad this is making people face up to the horrors of female genitial mutilation but that is, I repeat NOT, a product of the West and our values. It is Nigerias cross to bear and under no circumstances should our values and ideals be compromised or vilified over whatever decision is finally met IMO

from the thread in the politics forum. I agree with this completely, because of the standard it will set if she is allowed to stay.

Here's what's happened so far, from another post

Initial application turned down.
Subsequent appeal also failed

Now, having a Judicial Review deliver a negative verdict just about exhausts the legal means of attaining the status Ms Izevbekhai and her supporters desire.

The decisions,cold and legalistic as they may be were reached after due process in what we are led to believe is a free and fair Judicial system.

Since those initial judgements the profile of Ms Izevbakhai`s case has increased exponentially until it now appears any objective consideration of the facts may well be impossible....

Again I would add that due to the large amout of media attention that this has recieved and the propaganda that has been splurged out, it is extremely unlikely that the next hearing will be about facts and facts alone. so against your opinions the court of public opinion will be involved regardless.

sueme wrote: »

The government of the moment can make laws, we don't have to agree or accept them. The pensioners recently reminded us of that.

The changes that the government made affected the vast majority of the elderly population, so a revolt was understandable. You cannot compare this to the current situation where people are looking for the laws of this country to be overlooked for just one person and her family.

HollyB

sueme wrote: »

Court of Public Opinion? No, its the electorate saying they don't agree with the current law/procedures. The government of the moment can make laws, we don't have to agree or accept them.

How many people are campaigning on behalf of Pamela Izevbekhai?! The Irish electorate is made up of c. 3 million people.

If the electorate wants a change made to the laws relating to asylum, then at the next election, they vote for candidates who will make the changes they wish to see and, in the meantime, they lobby their current TDs about the changes, so that the changes will apply to all applicants, not just those who have been able to muster a media campaign on their behalf.

If people aren't happy with the laws that the government makes, it's up to them to exercise their right to elect a new government.

Big_Mac wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance here but isn't that what's going on. She's taking this to the court of human rights and rallying as much public support as she can, why do this if not to get the court of public opinion involved to try to sway the decision?

I don't know if the ECHR would be affected, one way or another, by a campaign. They have to make the decision based on the facts of the case and the facts of the case alone. Should they agree that Ms Izevbekhai is entitled to take her case to the Supreme Court, the same will be true of the judges there.

However, the public support could be used to attempt to pressure the Minister for Justice and/or the Taoiseach to grant leave to remain even if the case fails.

Big_Mac

HollyB wrote: »

However, the public support could be used to attempt to pressure the Minister for Justice and/or the Taoiseach to grant leave to remain even if the case fails.

Thats the concern. If our fearless biffo leader or the Minister for Justice decides to grant leave to remain, there will be a precedent set. Like I said at the start of this thread, it will very fast become an X-Factor like situation where the people with the biggest sob story who can pull on the most heart strings will be granted leave regardless of the validity of their case

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

Go home and sort out your own problems with your own country, we have enough to do here. For god sake, this debacle has cost the country a huge amount of money. That's public money that is badly needed everywhere else in this country, but no, lets spend it on this, because we like her.

This person (and many others) are here at a cost to the tax payer. Look around, we are in the depths of depression, and the state can hardly even manage to look after its own population never mind any refugees.

We have enough problems in this country that we need to be campaigning about, never mind some refugee spouting about the state of their country. ......Look around, we are in the depths of depression, and the state can hardly even manage to look after its own population never mind any refugees.

Sorry, but the Irish government has signed up to the Geneva convention of 1951 which protects refugees from torture in their home country. This is also part of an Act in our constitution.

Are you suggesting we ditch our commitment to the the Geneva Convention to Human Rights and repeal this act?

Again I would add that due to the large amout of media attention that this has received and the propaganda that has been splurged out, it is extremely unlikely that the next hearing will be about facts and facts alone. so against your opinions the court of public opinion will be involved regardless.

Are you saying that the Irish courts are unable to objectively look at a case?
That in effect the judicial system here does not work? A big statement to make. Can you explain why?

The changes that the government made affected the vast majority of the elderly population, so a revolt was understandable. You cannot compare this to the current situation where people are looking for the laws of this country to be overlooked for just one person and her family.

I think youve misunderstood the posters point. People either do have the right or do not have the right to publicly protest if they feel a law is unjust.

I feel they do have the right in this democracy. Legally we are allowed protest (that is obvious) and ethically I think this is only right.

The problem in this case in my opinion is that the Refugee commissioners use the fact that Nigeria has signed a lot of empty protocols and therefore has "Adequate state protections". They use it to turn down almost all asylum applications from Nigeria.
Nigeria has some Laws against FGM but only after the Event. The laws dont protect the child from the torture happening, they supposedly charge people after the torture has taken place (and they dont enforce any of these laws anyway).

The Refugee commisioners should reflect this in this case.
I think they are afraid of the "floodgate" effect so judgements tend to go against the seeker especially when youve a handy excuse like "adequate state protections" at your disposal.

The people who are arguing against this case going any further should know of the Fornah case in the UK which went all the way to the house of Lords before the girl was finally given refugee status.

If people had stopped that case before then an innocent girl would now have been subjected to torture.
Since that case in 2006 there has been only 3 applications in the UK using FGM as the reason and only 1 granted.
Although this shouldnt matter the Fornah case shows thats granting asylum to the Izevbekhais will only mean a few extra refugees for Ireland.

I.E No floodgates. The Refugee Commisioners would do well to note this as this is unfortunaely an influencing factor.

Anyone who blames Pamela for following all options and going the publicity route needs to have their head examined.

What would you do if you thought your two daughters might be returned to a situation where torture or death awaited?
Fight tooth and nail!

I believe that in the Irish system once the initial decision has been made then there is little power for the courts to subsequently repeal it.
I therefore hope there is intervention and with it a change to how FGM cases are dealt with in this country by the Refugee Commisioners.

If that is the case then Pamela Izevbekhai will have done this country a huge favour in terms of its ethical standing.

She will also have indirectly helped women in danger in Nigeria by putting the spotlight back on the government there and forcing them to start dealing with the massive problem of FGM on the ground.

darealtulip

T runner wrote: »

Are you saying that the Irish courts are unable to objectively look at a case?
That in effect the judicial system here does not work? A big statement to make. Can you explain why?

Uhm fathers that rape and abuse their childeren get 4 years in jail, priest get away with abuse, yep I dare say the judges in this country are not very objective.

T runner

darealtulip wrote: »

Uhm fathers that rape and abuse their childeren get 4 years in jail, priest get away with abuse, yep I dare say the judges in this country are not very objective.

That father case sounds like an example of the courts not looking objectively
at a case. This is abhorant and completely wrong. The priest case may not have even made the courts?

I would hope that these are exceptions rather than the rule.

If, as Big Mac suggests, that Pamelas case can no longer be looked at objectively because of media attention etc. this implies that no highish profile can be looked at objectively.

I dont buy this for one second.

If the media or other groups want to highlight something they are entitled to.
The alternative is censorship.

I take your point about that example you gave which looks like a clear examples of the wrong punishment being given.

darealtulip

T runner wrote: »

That father case sounds like an example of the courts not looking objectively
at a case. This is abhorant and completely wrong. The priest case may not have even made the courts?

I would hope that these are exceptions rather than the rule.

If, as Big Mac suggests, that Pamelas case can no longer be looked at objectively because of media attention etc. this implies that no highish profile can be looked at objectively.

I dont buy this for one second.

If the media or other groups want to highlight something they are entitled to.
The alternative is censorship.

I take your point about that example you gave which looks like a clear examples of the wrong punishment being given.

I agree with you there, but I think that the courts here are very mild on abuse and rape cases, but back on topic: This is a european problem but its up to the induvidual country to make laws, strikes me as bit strange since its all to do with human rights. Should there not be a european law for this? It stops the influance form media aswell I think and it stops the local politican scoring brownie points. Just a brain wave.

I am right in the middle with this discussion, I see everybody's point but also see you cant help the whole world. I'm just glad I dont have to make a discission to send a kid back knowing she get her clittoris cut out. We had a problem with african girls getting that done to them in holland and they proscutted (and jailed) the people that did that. I think freedom of religion ends here, and so did the courts.

I think we should accept that some religions are not very nice for woman and maybe stop being so political correct towards these religions and cultures.

6ix

In short, this woman has had a more than fair chance.

She has had an application, a subsequent appeal and then a Judicial Review. Her application for asylum has been rejected. End of story. There are plenty of refugees here who have been granted asylum and are treated well, and our system is not particularly harsh, so I have no doubt that Pamela and her children are not deserving of this status - it has been thoroughly investigated at this stage.

She has put her case forward, she has been ruled against. She is now undermining all genuine asylum seekers who want a fair hearing. While I've no doubt she is a nice lady, this is irrelevant (as others have said). In fact, her continuing refusal to respect the judgements of the Irish government are becoming an affront to a country that has welcomed her.

T runner

6ix wrote: »

In short, this woman has had a more than fair chance.

She has had an application, a subsequent appeal and then a Judicial Review. Her application for asylum has been rejected. End of story. There are plenty of refugees here who have been granted asylum and are treated well, and our system is not particularly harsh, so I have no doubt that Pamela and her children are not deserving of this status - it has been thoroughly investigated at this stage.

She has put her case forward, she has been ruled against. She is now undermining all genuine asylum seekers who want a fair hearing. While I've no doubt she is a nice lady, this is irrelevant (as others have said). In fact, her continuing refusal to respect the judgements of the Irish government are becoming an affront to a country that has welcomed her.

If you believed your children would be subjected to torture if they returnrd home would you also not fight with everything you had?

Or would you say to them "Kids I know youre going to be tortured, you might die but sorry, my continuing to fight for you might be perceived by some to be an affront to Ireland."

What would you do? A bit less of the self righteous, affront stuff etc.
She is an affront to nothing.

She is not doing anything she is not entitled to do.

If the Fornah case in the UK had not gone to the House of Lords an innocent
woman would be sent to torture in Somalia.

This case needs to run its course.

At the very least even if she loses she will have opened some Irish peoples eyes to the torture that is FGM (No law against it here yet!).

If she wins, she will have done Ireland and women in Nigeria a huge favour as I explained in an earlier post.

6ix

I'm not as familiar with the case as you obviously, but surely if she had credible proof that her children were in danger, then the Irish government would allow her to stay??

There are many many legal refugees in this country, and they have all proved their cases individually, which is perfectly fine. What makes Pamela any different? She has not proved her case, therefore she should not stay in my opinion.

T runner

6ix wrote: »

I'm not as familiar with the case as you obviously, but surely if she had credible proof that her children were in danger, then the Irish government would allow her to stay??

There are many many legal refugees in this country, and they have all proved their cases individually, which is perfectly fine. What makes Pamela any different? She has not proved her case, therefore she should not stay in my opinion.

Not necessarily. The refugee commissioners reject a huge amount of appeals from Nigerians because "state protections are adequate" in that country.
This is not true. In the case of FGM there has been no enforcement of new Laws on the ground. These laws dont actually protect the child from FGM only charge the alleged culprit after.

The refugee commissioners, in my opinion, are more biased towards turning people down. They can and do use the "adequate protections" trump card to stop asylum seekers from Nigeria. Even some genuine ones.

Big_Mac

Right then. Where is the conclusive proof that her children will face FGM if she is returned to her own country. I'm asking for conclusive proof of this going to happening to her children specifically. Will they be waiting for them at the airport?

Also, while I'm on the subject, can someone from the let her stay brigade also show some conclusive proof that her own government will do absolutely nothing to protect them? Again, I want conclusive proof, and not some 'I was told this, or she said that' sort of thing.

TequilaMockingBird

I would say the death of their sister might be evidence enough that there is a possible risk.

6ix

T runner wrote: »

The refugee commissioners, in my opinion, are more biased towards turning people down. They can and do use the "adequate protections" trump card to stop asylum seekers from Nigeria. Even some genuine ones.

It's just your opinion that they're biased, it may not be true.

sueme wrote: »

I would say the death of their sister might be evidence enough that there is a possible risk.

Has it been proved conclusively that her now deceased daughter was killed as a result of FGM? Is the lack of evidence of this not the reason for her not having a case to stay? I am liable to be completely wrong here, I've only read the odd piece here and there on the case, so don't slate me!

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

Right then. Where is the conclusive proof that her children will face FGM if she is returned to her own country. I'm asking for conclusive proof of this going to happening to her children specifically. Will they be waiting for them at the airport?

Also, while I'm on the subject, can someone from the let her stay brigade also show some conclusive proof that her own government will do absolutely nothing to protect them? Again, I want conclusive proof, and not some 'I was told this, or she said that' sort of thing.

Heres a quote from the asylum Law site, I hope this is what you are looking for:
http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/usdos01_fgm_Nigeria.pdf

"Legal Status:
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.
A member of the House of Representatives has drafted a bill, not yet in committee, banning this practice.
Edo State banned this practice in October 1999. Persons convicted under the law are subject to a 1000
Naira (US$10) fine and imprisonment of six months. While opponents of the practice applaud laws like this
one as a step in the right direction, they have criticized the small fine and lack of enforcement thus far.
Ogun, Cross River, Osun, Rivers and Bayelsa states have also banned the practice since 1999.
Most anti-FGM/FGC groups are focusing their energies at the state and local government levels.
IAC/Nigeria is pursuing a state by state strategy to criminalize the practice in all 36 states. It first meets
with the local government area Chairman about the harmful health effects of the practice. The Chairman is
relied on to make contact with Council members, traditional rulers and other opinion leaders to discuss the
problems associated with this practice and to work on alternative rites to satisfy cultural concerns. Only
after consensus has been reached at this level, are all employed in the statewide campaign to ban the
practice. IAC/Nigeria expects the campaign to take at least five years to reach all 36 states.

Protection:
We are unaware of any support groups to protect an unwilling woman or girl against this practice."


In Summary, some states in Nigeria have a law giving a fine or prison after the event.

You can see under the protection heading that there is no possibility of pre-emptive protection under Nigerian Law.

I.e in order to prosecute you have to produce a tortured child or a child killed by torture .
I havent found anywhere on the net where someone has actually being prosecuted, fined or imprisomed for FGM in Nigeria.

HollyB

T runner wrote: »

You can see under the protection heading that there is no possibility of pre-emptive protection under Nigerian Law.

What kind of protection is available against kidnapping, not FGM? In this case, since the parents are not going to consent to FGM being performed on their daughters, the family would have to forcibly abduct them in order to perform the procedure against the wishes of the parents. They can't perform the procedure unless they have the girls in the first place.

What kind of pre-emptive protection can be availed of in cases where there is a threat that the girls will be abducted?

TequilaMockingBird

HollyB wrote: »

What kind of protection is available against kidnapping, not FGM? In this case, since the parents are not going to consent to FGM being performed on their daughters, the family would have to forcibly abduct them in order to perform the procedure against the wishes of the parents. They can't perform the procedure unless they have the girls in the first place.

What kind of pre-emptive protection can be availed of in cases where there is a threat that the girls will be abducted?

Well, none. So I guess their safer here then..

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

Heres a quote from the asylum Law site, I hope this is what you are looking for:
http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/usdos01_fgm_Nigeria.pdf

"Legal Status:
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.
A member of the House of Representatives has drafted a bill, not yet in committee, banning this practice.
Edo State banned this practice in October 1999. Persons convicted under the law are subject to a 1000
Naira (US$10) fine and imprisonment of six months. While opponents of the practice applaud laws like this
one as a step in the right direction, they have criticized the small fine and lack of enforcement thus far.
Ogun, Cross River, Osun, Rivers and Bayelsa states have also banned the practice since 1999.
Most anti-FGM/FGC groups are focusing their energies at the state and local government levels.
IAC/Nigeria is pursuing a state by state strategy to criminalize the practice in all 36 states. It first meets
with the local government area Chairman about the harmful health effects of the practice. The Chairman is
relied on to make contact with Council members, traditional rulers and other opinion leaders to discuss the
problems associated with this practice and to work on alternative rites to satisfy cultural concerns. Only
after consensus has been reached at this level, are all employed in the statewide campaign to ban the
practice. IAC/Nigeria expects the campaign to take at least five years to reach all 36 states.

Protection:
We are unaware of any support groups to protect an unwilling woman or girl against this practice."


In Summary, some states in Nigeria have a law giving a fine or prison after the event.

You can see under the protection heading that there is no possibility of pre-emptive protection under Nigerian Law.

I.e in order to prosecute you have to produce a tortured child or a child killed by torture .
I havent found anywhere on the net where someone has actually being prosecuted, fined or imprisomed for FGM in Nigeria.

T runner, re read my original post. I asked for conclusive proof that these individuals in particular will face FGM, and not quotes from an asylym law site.

In summary, there are laws against it, and people are prosecuted for these things after the fact. What you posted is uselss and proves nothing of what I have asked, which leads me to belive that this complete petition is based on conjecture. Sure there are facts to say this, and facts to say that and so on so forth, but I have yet to see anything to say that these children specifically are in danger.
You should be familiar with being asked for proof from the politics forum

I havent found anywhere on the net where someone has actually being prosecuted, fined or imprisomed for FGM in Nigeria.

Your point being?

sueme wrote: »

I would say the death of their sister might be evidence enough that there is a possible risk.

Thats not what I asked. I asked for conclusive proof that her children will face FGM, not that her other daughter died and because of that the rest of them might. This proves Nothing. (not trying to sound disrespectful of the death of her daughter, which was unfortunate)

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

T runner, re read my original post. I asked for conclusive proof that these individuals in particular will face FGM, and not quotes from an asylym law site.

Sorry Big Mac but thats not quite true, the second part of your post asked for this.

Also, while I'm on the subject, can someone from the let her stay brigade also show some conclusive proof that her own government will do absolutely nothing to protect them? Again, I want conclusive proof, and not some 'I was told this, or she said that' sort of thing.

To repeat. My quote has shown that there are laws allowing prosecution after the torture has been done. There is no possibility for the Nigerian police protecting the Izenbeyai children from forced FGM. Therefore "her own government will do absolutely nothing to protect them".

For the first part I honestly thought you would join the dots like everyone else did.
They lost a child to FGM already. Ive shown with proof that the "state protections" against FGM in Nigeria put in place since that death are inadequate. Therefore the same dangerous situation which cost them the first child exists.
The courts have repeatedly used "adequate state protections" to block her asylum.

You should be familiar with being asked for proof from the politics forum

So you should know then that I always provide it.

What you posted is uselss and proves nothing of what I have asked, which leads me to belive that this complete petition is based on conjecture.

So because my post is "useless" you conclude that the whole case for asylum for the Izenbeyais is based on conjecture. Any proof for that?

Big Mac, I have no attention of giving an entire dissertion on this case to you. You can read up the politics forum for that.

Im not really worried what you think. Honestly.

I am concerned about what reasonably open minded people reading this thread might think, because if they see that a certain course of action will put two local younglings in harms way, they will probably oppose it.

For anyone with a few minutes, here's an account of the breakthrough "Fornah" case for FGM in Britain.

If you get through the first few paragraphs of boring stuff, (about half way down) it gives a very eye opening description of what FGM really is for in a society. And it is really, really nasty.....

Big_Mac

There you go again with facts about this, and statistics about that, specifics anyone?. All this does is prove there is an issue in Nigeria, and not that these individuals will undoubtedly face FGM on their return.
Should someone from another country be granted aslyum here because they have to walk along a road and there is statistics and facts to show that this is unsafe and are likely to be hit by a vehicle, and so they fear for their safety?

You've asked for references of reputable sources for info on the politics forum, recieved them and rubbished them because they don't fit with your views.

I will reiterate what has been said on the politics thread.

The burden of proof in asylum cases is on the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is a bona fide refugee, not on the state to prove that it has the right to deport. UNHCR guidelines say that the state should afford a reasonable benefit of the doubt whenever the asylum seeker has made a genuine effort to substantiate his or her claims. In Ms Izevbekhai's case, however, the courts have found that she has not made such a genuine effort. The bulk of Izevbekhai's case has been built on testimony relating to what happened to her first-born daughter almost sixteen years ago—an event that the courts do not see as germane to her case for asylum now. She has offered little else other than unsubstantiated allegations and fears, along with statistics about the prevalence of FGM in Africa that do not prove anything specific about her daughters.

Thus she should be sent packing. But i'm sure that you will rubbish this too because it doesn't come from some report somewhere, or some AI publication........

You seem blinkered T runner, and totally unwilling to pay any attention to the other side of the story, somewhat akin to Fianna Fáil. I see no point in continuing a discussion with you.

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

There you go again with facts about this, and statistics about that, specifics anyone?. All this does is prove there is an issue in Nigeria, and not that these individuals will undoubtedly face FGM on their return.
Should someone from another country be granted aslyum here because they have to walk along a road and there is statistics and facts to show that this is unsafe and are likely to be hit by a vehicle, and so they fear for their safety?

The Geneva convention defines a refugee as:

"Any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion."

(sorry about more of the "facts about this, and statistics about that,")

The Izevbekhai's would be part of the social group: "females fearing FGM in Nigeria"

You've asked for references of reputable sources for info on the politics forum, recieved them and rubbished them because they don't fit with your views.

I remember someone who referenced a scurrilous article in the Irish Independent. The person who wrote the article claimed doubts about how Pamela arrived in Ireland etc. He got the information from " a source in the immigration office". The information has sinced turned out to be rubbish. The immigration official might find himself in a spot of hot soup for leaking his "information".

I will reiterate what has been said on the politics thread.

You select one (unreferenced and unsubstantiated, sorry but they were only conjecture) post out of 1000 posts from the politics thread and you accuse me of being selective?

Make no mistake the Refugee Commisioners are stating that "state protections" against FGM are adequate in Nigeria. The Irish courts always agree with the refugee commisioners even when they are wrong and this is what is stopping them from getting asylum.

Here is some evidence ignored by the refugee commisoners from a report they actually took evidence from. This report uses a lot of sources including, unfortunately, the Nigerian government.:

"The Federal Government (of Nigeria) publicly opposed FGM; however, it took no legal action to curb the practice. There were no federal laws banning FGM"

And on the police who you have to have to go to for this "protection":

"the NPF (Nigerian Police Force) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’ "

"Despite repeated promises of reform by senior government and police officials, extra-judicial killings, torture, ill treatment, arbitrary arrests and extortion remain the hallmarks of the Nigerian police. Throughout the years, a large number of extra-judicial killings occurred not only in the context of crime fighting operations against alleged armed robbers, but also during routine duties such as traffic control. Cases of torture and ill-treatment by the police during arrest and detention are common. Police often take advantage of situations of generalized violence and disorder to carry out further killings. For example, in May 2004, riots between Muslims and Christians in Kano left more than two hundred people dead, dozens of whom had been shot dead by the police. In very few cases were the individuals responsible for these acts or their superiors brought to justice.” [22e]

“….There were numerous cases of arrests, detention, ill-treatment, intimidation and harassment....

....Any prosecutions which are brought as a result of police action will invariably be in favour of the wealthier party to the complaint"

The below report shows Nigeria as one of the most corrupt societies in the world.

Corruption index

Yet the Refugee Commisioners has cherry picked info from this report to somehow show "state protections" are adequate cherry picked mainly from Nigerian Official sources used in the report.

You seem blinkered T runner, and totally unwilling to pay any attention to the other side of the story, somewhat akin to Fianna Fáil. I see no point in continuing a discussion with you.

Big Mac, your point there seems to be confused: somewhat akin to Ronald McDonald.

blackiebest

"Should someone from another country be granted aslyum here because they have to walk along a road and there is statistics and facts to show that this is unsafe and are likely to be hit by a vehicle, and so they fear for their safety?"

Do you really think the above helps your (IMO) warped argument? I have nothing but respect both for T-Runner and Donegal Fella (political forum) who can deliver points in a lucid and, for the most part, balanced way. I am very much in favour of Pamela being granted leave to remain here with her two girls but feel that everyone has a right to their opinion, once it can be articulated in a mature manner.

slapbangwhallop

I would say that the opinion of your average person in Sligo is that they are sick of this woman and feel that she is a bluffer and is needlessly costing our country money.

blackiebest

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

I would say that the opinion of your average person in Sligo is that they are sick of this woman and feel that she is a bluffer and is needlessly costing our country money.

I would say you are probably right, i would also imagine that the average Sligo person feels the same about Polish or the 'eastern europeans' now that we are in an economic downturn, but your average person in Sligo, IMO, cares only for themselves and their circle of friends, they feel that a few euro in the GOAL box and thats that, just keep it in Africa. That young girls are mutilated in another country does not seem to bother the 'average Sligo person' and they do not want to know. I wonder how the kids of these 'average sligo person' would feel about it if the facts were explained to them, because they could well be talking about their school chums, Pamela's daughters. Would they be proud of their parents convictions? I hope not but I fear so.

The average sligo persons attitute towards people of a different race or culture is, IMO, apalling and is no argument to put these two young kids in danger.

It is unfortunate that the 'average Sligo person' has the attitude they have towards so many things, litter, environment etc.

We live in a great part of the world and we are very lucky people but we have short memories and are sadly deficient in our humanity.

TequilaMockingBird

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

I would say that the opinion of your average person in Sligo is that they are sick of this woman and feel that she is a bluffer and is needlessly costing our country money.

That depends on what standards you base your average person on: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58506177&postcount=88

Your average and mine, appear to be quite different. What I find unacceptable behavior may be normal behavior to you.

slapbangwhallop

sueme wrote: »

That depends on what standards you base your average person on: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58506177&postcount=88

Your average and mine, appear to be quite different. What I find unacceptable behavior may be normal behavior to you.

I dont doubt it!