Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[anlkestony]

No evidence that kids will be in danger. fraudulent applications can not and will not be tolerated which is right and correct

[supamolli]

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

That is the question to be answered. It hasn't been answered yet. Where is the evidence that these particular children face real danger. The prevalence argument isn't sufficient.

The evidence this woman presented showing real danger was the death of a child. This evidence is now shown to be false. So in order for the asylum to succeed for the children's sake, more clear evidence has to be presented.

It is sorely missing.

[hopi watcher]

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?

The evidence is in the fact that FGM is wide spread in Nigeria. All females are at risk. Regarding Limerick's murder rate, how many times have we heard senior Garda making the statement that it is only a matter of time that innocent people are caught up in the cross fire?

[HollyB]

The child is the victim of FGM not the parent. In this case the role of the parent is noty relevent.

I never said that the parent is the victim.

In the case of FGM, the parent is often the one victimising their own daughter which means that, whether or not it fits with your oft-repeated insistence that the prevalence is all that matters, the parents have a role and that role is very relevant, far more relevant than the basic numbers of girls subjected to FGM. In the absence of parental consent and a specific outside threat, these girls will not suffer the same fate as a quarter of their contemporaries do. In short, they will be the lucky ones.

Those who want to abolish the practice of FGM need to be looking at the daughters of parents who believe in the practice and who will subject their daughters to the procedure, not the daughters of parents who do not believe in the practice and who will not subject their daughters to it. The former group are the ones who stand in need of protection. They are the ones for whom solutions need to be found.

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.

If the court makes decisions based on prevalence, and the prevalence is known, do you care to explain why they have not simply looked at the numbers and said, "okay, 25% of Nigerian women are subjected to FGM, Naomi and Jemima Izevbekhai are Nigerian girls, which means that there's a 1 in 4 chance that they'll be subjected to the procedure and they must therefore be granted asylum"?

The court cannot and should not make its decisions based on such simplistic reasoning.

Each case must be judged on its individual merits, which means that the court is looking at the threat to Naomi and Jemima as individuals, not at the threat to the average Nigerian girl. Since Naomi and Jemima are fortunate enough to have parents who do not agree with the procedure, it falls to their mother to provide evidence - not simply her word, uncorroborated by any evidence to back it up - that there is a specific threat to her daughters besides herself and her husband.

The Nigerian government will not need to protect these girls if there is no specific threat to their safety.

[corelli]

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.

Yep, mine exposes them to a possible threat of FGM which the entire female population of Nigeria face. It is a matter for the international community to deal with.

We are not the social services for the entire sub Saharan continent. Anyone with a specific provable threat of FGM should be allowed to remain. Pamela does not and I would imagine never had nor will.

Any other view is irrational and unrealistic.

[Horace Horse]

The evidence is in the fact that FGM is wide spread in Nigeria. All females are at risk. Regarding Limerick's murder rate, how many times have we heard senior Garda making the statement that it is only a matter of time that innocent people are caught up in the cross fire?

So Nigeria should grant refugee status to people from Limerick?

[Kevin Doyle]

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.

This is absolute horse********************e and totally devoid of the point. How many cases in the UK are there where the children were mutilated against the wishes of the mother?

Thats the only pertinent statistic regarding the case at hand. Those other cases involve children where the parents are actively complicit in the crime, it is irrelevant where the children reside under those circumstances because the children are mutilated with consent.

However, as in Ireland, Nigerian parents who disagree with FGM are guaranteed to have their children protected against it as they have the full force of the police and the judicial mechanisms of the state to protect them.

That is not the case in Nigeria.

[supamolli]

The evidence is in the fact that FGM is wide spread in Nigeria. All females are at risk. Regarding Limerick's murder rate, how many times have we heard senior Garda making the statement that it is only a matter of time that innocent people are caught up in the cross fire?

Prevalence is not sufficient for pleading an FGM as a case for asylum just like pleading being a woman is not sufficient grounds although serious domestic violence is equally prevalent in many African societies,

There has to be evidence of real danger to these particular children. The evidence was the death of a previous child. That evidence has now been shown to be a lie so new evidence is needed.

Where is this evidence?

[hopi watcher]

Yep, mine exposes them to a possible threat of FGM which the entire female population of Nigeria face. It is a matter for the international community to deal with.

We are not the social services for the entire sub Saharan continent. Anyone with a specific provable threat of FGM should be allowed to remain. Pamela does not and I would imagine never had nor will.

Any other view is irrational and unrealistic.

Well at least we have a bit of honesty for a change. Your acknowledgement that your position exposes the children to mutilation cuts across all the waffle flying around here and is at least refreshing. I would have thought that in the circumstances that our community would not deny such children sancutary

[supamolli]

This is absolute horse********************e and totally devoid of the point. How many cases in the UK are there where the children were mutilated against the wishes of the mother?

Thats the only pertinent statistic regarding the case at hand.

What statistics do you have for children suffering FGM in Nigeria against the wishes of their parents?

This is the whole point, you are confusing prevalence with real danger. Where is the evidence of real danger?