Yes indeed...Originally Posted by Metric
As I said, there is no suggestion in Ms. I's behaviour or comments that she or her husband harbour any anger against the people that allegedly kidnapped, mutilated and caused the death of her daughter.
Which makes no sense in terms of natural human feelings - but would make perfect sense if the crime never happened...
Mr Gormley described calls for the resignation of his cabinet colleague as "absolute nonsense". He said Mr Lenihan was doing "a very good job under exceptionally difficult circumstances".
It is the signal it sends to nigerians and all others from aera's where they can claim to be under threat of this practice,head for ireland land of the soft touch and useful idiot.
NAMA............. the crowd that just keeps on giving
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not bad for an amateur lawyer!
Criminal Justice, UN Convention against Torture Act, 2000.
4.—(1) A person shall not be expelled or returned from the State to another state where the Minister is of the opinion that there are substantial gounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
(2) For the purposes of determining whether there are such grounds, the Minister shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Notwithstanding the above, which the Minister has to consider, it is merely the enunciation of the age old principle of non-refoulement which always has to be considered under the Refugee Act.
This Act adds nothing substantive in terms of what the minister is obliged to consider. Neither he nor the courts obviously believes Pamela. You might also note the word "substantial grounds" in the paragraphs above.
You repeatedly fail to address the issue of 'basic human deceny' Why any one would want to make a case to justify exposing two children to mutilation is beyond comprehension. it really is that simple.This scaremongering, that should we do the decent thing and show humanitarian compassion, the outfall will be a deluge of immigrents is just a silly diversion. A humanitarian decision does not in any way dilute our existing laws or preclude us from addressing any issue that arises particularly with regard to any threat to the integrity of the State.
We are talking about the law of the land, which we are all obliged to obey, and someone trying to get around same by uttering forged documents. It's not about "fairness" or whatever amorphous wording you care to use. Its about justice. The law is the law. It applies equally to everyone. She tried to subvert it and got caught. She would appear to have absolutely no evidence to support her claim and, comparatively, a fairly decent standard of living in Nigeria. I would not worry for one second of anything happening to her children when they arrive back home in Nigeria.
Wrong, we are talking about human compassion. Laws are fallible. In this case the Minister can and should allow the children to remain on humanitarian grounds. Regarding your certainty, neither the UN or Amnesty concur. But then, it's not your genitalia that is going to be mutilated if your hunch happens to be wrong. A really brave call.
You would appear quite gullible on this issue for an otherwise intelligent poster, I would have to say. No amount of reason will change your mind. Can you not see that, on the balance of probabilities, she is telling massive porkies?
It doesn't hold water that to escape FGM, you leapfrog multiple safe EU states before arriving in Ireland. It's economic-migration fullstop.
Read the UN and Amnesty reports on FGM. There is a 1 in 4 chance that if returned these children will be mutilated. That is a fact.
And if you are wrong? Will you offer your genitalia as a substitute to be mutilaled in return for allowing these children to be spared this barbarity?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks