Originally Posted by hopi watcher
Nobody wants to see children mutilated, particularly those two who seem to be quite delightful. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the children will be safe in Nigeria. We as a nation simply cannot be seen to reward sustained dishonesty nor can we be seen to be a soft touch for every African family in search of "a better life".
I want to live in Canada. I am white(!) well educated, etc. but I don't have the skills required for a working visa list. YET
So I am going to go there and seek asylum, and say that my country is dangerous, the government is not looking after me. I am in danger of punitive taxes while the corrupt leaders and vested interests cream it out. My daughter has Cystic Fybrosis and cannot be treated in a safe environment, if she goes back she will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. What are my chances?
In Ms Iz case, I think it is "oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive"
but we can't believe daylight from any of them..............
Exactly what evidence is there that the children will be safe in Nigeria Trampas?
Nigeria is larger than France and Germany combined. The Nigerian govt has confirmed that outside of tribal/islamic areas FGM is not prevalent. It would appear that PI regards her husband's family as the greatest danger. When she gets back she should stay far away from them, and of course in such a vast country that should not be a problem. Now perhaps you can answer one for me. If PI is allowed to stay then how will we cope with the inevitable stampede of African families with daughters ?
They have done no such thing. Quite the opposite in fact. In a report to the UN in 2006 they said that 33% of all women and girls in Nigeria have been subjected to FGM...up to 65% in some areas and 40% in urban areas.
'Internal flight' is not considered in law to be a realisitc option by the way.
As for how we deal with the "inevitable stampede", well developing a process through which we properly assess each case on its actual merits would be a start, and have the added benefit of actually ensuring we lived up to our legal obligations.
Actual merits, did you say ? But surely you wouldn't doubt any African mother who arrives here claiming that her daughter is at risk of FGM. Isn't that "merit" enough for you ? Surely a denial of asylum is too great a risk.
Any response to the statistics presented by the State of Nigeria to UN CEDAW on foot of your assertion that "the Nigerian govt has confirmed that outside of tribal/islamic areas FGM is not prevalent"?
In answer to your rather silly question, the state has an obligation in law to asses and judge each case on its merits. Sneering at the notion doesn't indicate much respect for the law on your part. Personally I am in favour of a robust, fair and transparent asylum process. One that grants asylum where it is merited, after a real and open assessment of the case presented and within a reasonable timeframe, and that rejects claims for asylum where such claims are without foundation.
Unless of course FGM is mentioned, in which case all claims are well founded. Aren't they ?
As to your first question can you possibly be suggesting that females are not safe from FGM anywhere in Nigeria ?
I read somewhere that PI's own ethnic-group in Nigeria do not practice FGM. In that context, her case for remaining in Ireland on the basis of FGM seems all the more lacking in credibility - even before recent revelations. I am aware that in the former capital, Lagos, at least 60% of women do not undergo FGM.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks