Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[nonpartyboy]

Hello.

Since Amnesty's position is referred to a couple of times on this it might be good just to clarify things. I also think people are treating two linked issues as one.

The first is FGM in Nigeria. One in three Nigerian women are subjected to it. The Nigerian Government has no federal law against it and enforcement of local laws against it on a state level are minimal. This is what Nigeria told the UN in 2006 and 2008. There isn't a single credible source that maintains FGM doesn't happen in Nigeria and today we saw Nigerians outside their own embassy protesting against the Ambassador's comments. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from FGM. They said this to the UN and now they are saying a different thing when a specific asylum case is embarassing them.

Regardless of the Izevbekhai case girls in Nigeria face something described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as a form of torture. A brutal, horrific and often fatal medical procedure. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from this. Full stop. We know it and her bluster aside the Nigerian Ambassador knows it.

Initially the sole reason for deporting the family was not that the Irish state did not believe there was a threat, it was because they believed Nigeria could protect the girls from the threat. It cannot.

Whether there is a threat to the girls is something for the courts to decide and it has been our position that Pamela Izevbekhai is entitled to due process on this. So, for example, we opposed deporting her at the end of 2008 when her legal challenges were still going through the courts because she has a right to be in the state until her legal avenues are exhausted. Her documents have now been exposed as fraudulent. Many refugees are obliged to use such documents to flee and she is entitled to have an opportunity to explain her position in court and to refute the new claims against her.

Finally, someone questions the human rights credibility of the UN because Libya is the Chair of the UN Human Rights Council. A couple of points on this. Firstly, as Amnesty International's global reports, available on Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights, there are certainly huge human rights problems in Libya. In 2003 Libya was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission, since replaced by the Human Rights Council. Members of these bodies are elected by the members of the UN General Assembly. It is the states themselves who elect the members of those bodies. Criticisms of the UN are certainly valid but remember that the institution can only act in ways member states permit it or instruct it to act.

I think your executive director has done you huge damage with regard to this case, even when the woman admitted she used false documents, he still tried to defend her on the basis that because the state only fully investigated the claims when she went to a higher court she should be allowed stay if i remember the todayfm interview correctly.

Just so i am quiet clear here what exactly is amnestys position with regard to people seeking asylum on the basis of FGM.If you say that 1 in 3 women are subject to it and taking into consideration the population of nigeria,then you must believe that the no. of potential victims runs into the hundreds of thousands ?Does amnesty believe than someone from nigeria who arrives here and claims to be under threat of FGM should be granted asylum on that basis ?

The real problem for this woman was that she tried to be too smart,by inventing it seems a case that already contained a victim rather than just 2 potential ones.

[Ulster-Lad]

Hello.

Since Amnesty's position is referred to a couple of times on this it might be good just to clarify things. I also think people are treating two linked issues as one.

The first is FGM in Nigeria. One in three Nigerian women are subjected to it. The Nigerian Government has no federal law against it and enforcement of local laws against it on a state level are minimal. This is what Nigeria told the UN in 2006 and 2008. There isn't a single credible source that maintains FGM doesn't happen in Nigeria and today we saw Nigerians outside their own embassy protesting against the Ambassador's comments. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from FGM. They said this to the UN and now they are saying a different thing when a specific asylum case is embarassing them.

Regardless of the Izevbekhai case girls in Nigeria face something described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as a form of torture. A brutal, horrific and often fatal medical procedure. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from this. Full stop. We know it and her bluster aside the Nigerian Ambassador knows it.

Initially the sole reason for deporting the family was not that the Irish state did not believe there was a threat, it was because they believed Nigeria could protect the girls from the threat. It cannot.

Whether there is a threat to the girls is something for the courts to decide and it has been our position that Pamela Izevbekhai is entitled to due process on this. So, for example, we opposed deporting her at the end of 2008 when her legal challenges were still going through the courts because she has a right to be in the state until her legal avenues are exhausted. Her documents have now been exposed as fraudulent. Many refugees are obliged to use such documents to flee and she is entitled to have an opportunity to explain her position in court and to refute the new claims against her.

Finally, someone questions the human rights credibility of the UN because Libya is the Chair of the UN Human Rights Council. A couple of points on this. Firstly, as Amnesty International's global reports, available on Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights, there are certainly huge human rights problems in Libya. In 2003 Libya was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission, since replaced by the Human Rights Council. Members of these bodies are elected by the members of the UN General Assembly. It is the states themselves who elect the members of those bodies. Criticisms of the UN are certainly valid but remember that the institution can only act in ways member states permit it or instruct it to act.

Your post is total sh!te. Nothing has been proven to support her claim. On the contarary, lots of evidence has come to light thats refutes it. Her case is based on lies and forged documents. She should be deported as a matter of urgency. I do not want the Irish legal system bogged down with her any longer. If she is going to answer for her crimes then let her answer in Nigeria.

[FutureTaoiseach]

It isn't enough to show there is a general propensity in Nigeria in favour of FGM. Imho, the question is whether these children face a specific threat of FGM. Imho, they do not and consequently the family should be deported, lest others be tempted to invent similarly fabricated claims for economic-reasons.

[Odyessus]

Hello.

Since Amnesty's position is referred to a couple of times on this it might be good just to clarify things. I also think people are treating two linked issues as one.

The first is FGM in Nigeria. One in three Nigerian women are subjected to it. The Nigerian Government has no federal law against it and enforcement of local laws against it on a state level are minimal. This is what Nigeria told the UN in 2006 and 2008. There isn't a single credible source that maintains FGM doesn't happen in Nigeria and today we saw Nigerians outside their own embassy protesting against the Ambassador's comments. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from FGM. They said this to the UN and now they are saying a different thing when a specific asylum case is embarassing them.

Regardless of the Izevbekhai case girls in Nigeria face something described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as a form of torture. A brutal, horrific and often fatal medical procedure. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from this. Full stop. We know it and her bluster aside the Nigerian Ambassador knows it.

Initially the sole reason for deporting the family was not that the Irish state did not believe there was a threat, it was because they believed Nigeria could protect the girls from the threat. It cannot.

Whether there is a threat to the girls is something for the courts to decide and it has been our position that Pamela Izevbekhai is entitled to due process on this. So, for example, we opposed deporting her at the end of 2008 when her legal challenges were still going through the courts because she has a right to be in the state until her legal avenues are exhausted. Her documents have now been exposed as fraudulent. Many refugees are obliged to use such documents to flee and she is entitled to have an opportunity to explain her position in court and to refute the new claims against her.

Finally, someone questions the human rights credibility of the UN because Libya is the Chair of the UN Human Rights Council. A couple of points on this. Firstly, as Amnesty International's global reports, available on Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights, there are certainly huge human rights problems in Libya. In 2003 Libya was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission, since replaced by the Human Rights Council. Members of these bodies are elected by the members of the UN General Assembly. It is the states themselves who elect the members of those bodies. Criticisms of the UN are certainly valid but remember that the institution can only act in ways member states permit it or instruct it to act.

I am sorry to say your organisation, despite the good intentions of many of your members, has become a laughing stock.

[Horace Horse]

Hello.

Since Amnesty's position is referred to a couple of times on this it might be good just to clarify things. I also think people are treating two linked issues as one.



Regardless of the Izevbekhai case girls in Nigeria face something described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture as a form of torture. A brutal, horrific and often fatal medical procedure. The Nigerian state cannot protect girls from this. Full stop. We know it and her bluster aside the Nigerian Ambassador knows it.

Initially the sole reason for deporting the family was not that the Irish state did not believe there was a threat, it was because they believed Nigeria could protect the girls from the threat. It cannot.

.

Amnesty:

Your outfit has no standing in this case. In fact, it has long lost its standing in anything.

I am old enough to remember when Amnesty was a powerful moral voice against oppression. At that time I supported the organization, indeed for a time I was a member.

No longer. You're a foolish farce. Buzz off.

To take just one absurdity, you ask us to believe that the grandparents of these children will overpower the parents, presumably tie them up or whatever, and then drag the children off to some witchdoctor? This though we know nothing of the grandparents (do they exist?) but we do know that both father and mother are tough, resourceful people.

You're mad.

[Kevin Doyle]

Amnesty:

Your outfit has no standing in this case. In fact, it has long lost its standing in anything.

I am old enough to remember when Amnesty was a powerful moral voice against oppression. At that time I supported the organization, indeed for a time I was a member.

No longer. You're a foolish farce. Buzz off.

To take just one absurdity, you ask us to believe that the grandparents of these children will overpower the parents, presumably tie them up or whatever, and then drag the children off to some witchdoctor? This though we know nothing of the grandparents (do they exist?) but we do know that both father and mother are tough, resourceful people.

You're mad.

Wow, attacking Amnesty. It has no standing in Ireland? What a laughable comment.

True colours emerging here but that was always going to happen.

Reducing this to a mere struggle between grandparents and parents displays perfectly the ignorance of many here of the issue at hand.

FGM is widespread in Nigeria and those who support it will now view these kids as a direct threat to a practice they view as an intrinsic part of their cultural make up and identity. They view FGM as an extension of that identity and consider females who have not been subjected to it as inferior and unclean and are stigmatised as such.

We all know what happens to those who try and resist custom, especially those who draw international condemnation of that custom toward people who view it as wholesome and obligatory. The grandparents wont have to lift a finger to have their wishes carried out, they will most likely have public opinion in Nigeria on their side and will have many many people vying for these girls to be mutilated in order to vindicate their own positions and that of a practice they believe to be correct.

These kids must stay, their lives may well depend on it.

[hopi watcher]

Of course the import of that argument is that every nigerian family in Ireland with kids, presently resident or prospectively, should never be sent back to Nigeria because of the generalised risk of FGM

This is deciding the future of chidrens wellbeing by specualting on what might or might not be an outfall of that particular decision. Injustice is ok if to serve justice would create an unwelcome speculaitve precedent. Is that your position on the matter?

[hopi watcher]

Her story is bull and she should be deported

But dedportation does not present a threat to her, it does to the childfren. And their crime is? Being born female in Nigeria?

[nonpartyboy]

Kevin doyle and Hopi,

What is your view on the questions i put to amnesty ?

"Just so i am quiet clear here what exactly is amnestys position with regard to people seeking asylum on the basis of FGM.If you say that 1 in 3 women are subject to it and taking into consideration the population of nigeria,then you must believe that the no. of potential victims runs into the hundreds of thousands ?Does amnesty believe than someone from nigeria who arrives here and claims to be under threat of FGM should be granted asylum on that basis ?"

[hopi watcher]

Amnesty:

Your outfit has no standing in this case. In fact, it has long lost its standing in anything.

I am old enough to remember when Amnesty was a powerful moral voice against oppression. At that time I supported the organization, indeed for a time I was a member.

No longer. You're a foolish farce. Buzz off.

To take just one absurdity, you ask us to believe that the grandparents of these children will overpower the parents, presumably tie them up or whatever, and then drag the children off to some witchdoctor? This though we know nothing of the grandparents (do they exist?) but we do know that both father and mother are tough, resourceful people.

You're mad.

A simple question; do you not regard the mutilation of female children as 'oppression'? What do you ragard it as?