Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[HollyB]

The courts or anyone else can only assess the danger based on prevelance That we know with reasonable certainty to be in excess of 25% The role of the parents is not relevent as they are not in any danger at all, the childfren are.

How can the role of the parents not be relevant if, in the majority of cases, the parents are the ones who constitute a threat to their children because they are the ones who will decide if they will subject them to the procedure?

For Naomi and Jemima, their parents clearly do not agree with the procedure. The risk to them would therefore have to come from an outside threat - in this case, Pamela has alleged that her in-laws are attempting to abduct her daughters and subject them to the procedure against her wishes and those of their father. It is the outside threat that the courts must evaluate, along with the question of whether or not it would have been possible for Naomi and Jemima to be protected if their parents relocated to an area in Nigeria where FGM is not widespread.

They are not deciding if there is FGM in Nigeria, or how many girls are subjected to the procedure. They need to decide if there is a specific threat to these two particular girls and, if so, is it impossible for them to be protected against that specific threat in Nigeria, by the Nigerian authorities and/or by their parents relocating within Nigeria.

[hopi watcher]

Let's take this slowly. 74,000 women living in Britain have undergone FGM so the threat is there too. Or is 74,000 not prevalent enough for you?

The prevalence argument is only valid if there is a clear danger to the children in question. The danger comes from matriarchs in the family enforcing the FGM. This family can go to Nigeria and refuse to have contact with the side of the family looking to have this practice carried out. The only danger to the children is if the mother gives her consent.

If the mother gives her consent, the evidence shows it's as likely to happen while living in the EU as living in Nigeria or is 74,000 cases not evidence for you.

BBC NEWS | UK | Female circumcision 'on the rise'



A law is only as strong as the respect people have for it. For example, driving without a provisional licence is an offence, how respected is it.

Failure to enforce a law and placing fraudsters and cheats ahead of honest applicants undermines the very fabric of law.

It is the height of hypocrisy to tell one Nigerian family that they are being deported because they were truthful in their application while another that lied, cheated, defrauded and misled the State can stay.

And one final question, would you accept that women who have already suffered FGM have no right of asylum or is it just those who are in fear of it? This would at least reassure some on the floodgates argument.

Why is there so much gymnastics here. The comparison between prevelance in the UK and Nigeriia is crazy, the prevalance in the UK is miniscule and the practise is a crime, repeat a crime. The police in the UK are pro-active in stamping out this pratcise and persons face very serious charges if caught. So if you where a young female, what country would prefer to reside in? To suggest that the children are in as much danger outside Nigeria is simply rediculous.

The consent issue is also a red herring and is misleading some who post here. The parent is not a voctim the childfren are and parental consent does not make this practise any more acceptable.

You lasty question is a little baffling, we at re here talking about children seeking to stay here so as to be safe against FGM, what that has to do woith persons not in any such damnger is slightly myterious.

[corelli]

I can only assume that you have not read my last post in direct answer to these very points. All I can do is repeat it.

"Proof of FGM threat; 25%, at least , prevelance.

"She lived there for 6 years": Girls can be subjected to FGM up to late teens and in some cases beyond.

The grounds for allowing them to stay is simply, If returned they will be in danger of mutilation because of the high prevalence in Nigieria.

And now the red hererring about having to accommodate in Ireland every women in the world living with the threat of FGM (even reading that statement ought be enough to discount is it as a valid nconcern it is so silly) I have repeated over and over again that allowing the family to stay on humanitarian grounds has no impact whatever on exisiting laws and therefore the position is not altered by that decision. It is bogus to suggest that such a decison will open flood gates or any gates. Is that any clearer? In any event should problems arise as a result of any decision taken, the govenrment can act to address any such problem. Is that any clearer?

You then go on to accuse me of holding an 'irrational position' Perhaps you might attempt to give is a rational explanation as to what motivates those who carry out this practsie, are they rational? Do you think that we could expect that they would behave humanely if asked to?"

Your obfuscating again.

And how would the State deal with these "implications" you talk about?

I know that Girl's can be subjected to it until their teens. That does not answer the issue about them being safe for 6 years prior to coming here. Why were they only then in danger or are you just referring to generalised danger again?

Now, answer the question, would you support any other family in a similar position?

You see this thing you have with it having no "implications" legally is correct, as leave to remain is a discretionary power of the Minister, but it has implications socially and in expectation.

What happens the next time someone else gets the media on their side and shouts FGM?

It creates a precedent for the Minister granting such applications where an applicant has been good at manipulating the media and has, it appears, uttered forged documents in the course of their claim.

It is an intolerable and idiotic position to hold that she should be granted permission to remain.

[hopi watcher]

How can the role of the parents not be relevant if, in the majority of cases, the parents are the ones who constitute a threat to their children because they are the ones who will decide if they will subject them to the procedure?

For Naomi and Jemima, their parents clearly do not agree with the procedure. The risk to them would therefore have to come from an outside threat - in this case, Pamela has alleged that her in-laws are attempting to abduct her daughters and subject them to the procedure against her wishes and those of their father. It is the outside threat that the courts must evaluate, along with the question of whether or not it would have been possible for Naomi and Jemima to be protected if their parents relocated to an area in Nigeria where FGM is not widespread.

They are not deciding if there is FGM in Nigeria, or how many girls are subjected to the procedure. They need to decide if there is a specific threat to these two particular girls and, if so, is it impossible for them to be protected against that specific threat in Nigeria, by the Nigerian authorities and/or by their parents relocating within Nigeria.

The child is the victim of FGM not the parent. In this case the role of the parent is noty relevent. The courts can only make a decision based on the prevelance and that is known.
The Nigerian government has clearly established it's inabiltiy to protect children, again look at the numbers involved.

[anlkestony]

[quote=hopi watcher;1557559]

See UN please.

And? still waiting please

[supamolli]

Why is there so much gymnastics here. The comparison between prevelance in the UK and Nigeriia is crazy, the prevalance in the UK is miniscule and the practise is a crime, repeat a crime. The police in the UK are pro-active in stamping out this pratcise and persons face very serious charges if caught. So if you where a young female, what country would prefer to reside in? To suggest that the children are in as much danger outside Nigeria is simply rediculous.

The consent issue is also a red herring and is misleading some who post here. The parent is not a voctim the childfren are and parental consent does not make this practise any more acceptable.

You lasty question is a little baffling, we at re here talking about children seeking to stay here so as to be safe against FGM, what that has to do woith persons not in any such damnger is slightly myterious.

Are you saying 74,000 cases by 2004 alone is miniscule? The UK law is irrelevant as parents for the most part bring their children away on holiday where it is done there.

The question here is, as mentioned above is not the prevalence but whether there is a specific threat to these children. (Limerick is the murder capital of Europe but it has no relevance to my safety living elsewhere)

Are they members of a specific ethnic group or religion, living in a particular area where the risk is high for them. If not then they have no right to asylum.

The fact that the mother could seemingly even have lied about having a child it's hard to believe her when she says her family is in the high risk category. Where is the evidence?

[corelli]

[quote=anlkestony;1557652]

And? still waiting please

The Nigerian Government reported to the UN that there, in simple terms, was a 25% incidence of FGM in Nigeria, and gave a breakdown where it is more prevalent.

He is completely correct about that and the fact that the Nigerian Ambassador is now denying it as the issue has becoming embarrassing is of no credit to the Nigerian Government.

With that I would agree with Hopi.

[Kevin Doyle]

The hypothesis abounding here as to the motivations of those trying to defend these children is telling.

This thread once again is meandering all over the place in an attempt to bury the only issue for consideration under an avalanche of bluster and whataboutery.

These kids face a real danger if deported. That is it, end of story.

They should remain where they are to remove that threat completely.

That is what the court will decide and rightfully, If it was left to the court of public opinion these children would have been condemned long ago for reasons that amount to nothing more than saving face.

Pathetic really, but there ya go.

[hopi watcher]

Your obfuscating again.

And how would the State deal with these "implications" you talk about?

I know that Girl's can be subjected to it until their teens. That does not answer the issue about them being safe for 6 years prior to coming here. Why were they only then in danger or are you just referring to generalised danger again?

Now, answer the question, would you support any other family in a similar position?

You see this thing you have with it having no "implications" legally is correct, as leave to remain is a discretionary power of the Minister, but it has implications socially and in expectation.

What happens the next time someone else gets the media on their side and shouts FGM?

It creates a precedent for the Minister granting such applications where an applicant has been good at manipulating the media and has, it appears, uttered forged documents in the course of their claim.

It is an intolerable and idiotic position to hold that she should be granted permission to remain.

You really are trying very hard to miss the point. Surviving for 6 years is not an indication that FGM is not likely after that. How could it? You then go on to admit "I know that Girl's can be subjected to it until their teens" So you explain your dilemma to yourself. What is 'generalised danger'? All females in Nigeria are at a risk of FGM.

You then agree that a humanitain decision has no`"implications" but then go on to say that it has implications in "expectations" Wrong, a decsion has no, repeat no implications either real or imaginary.

Regarding my position being idiotic, you can call it what you like, but the fact remains that my position does not expose two children to mutilation yours on the other hand most certainly does.

[sandar]

you doint have a position, it changes every day