Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[hopi watcher]

[QUOTE=supamolli;1557713]Prevalence is not sufficient for pleading an FGM as a case for asylum
QUOTE]

It most certainly is

[Kevin Doyle]

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.

Its not just the parents, the extended family have a role and an intrusive one at that.

PI stating she does not want FGM to happen to her children is not enough to guarantee their safety in Nigeria, the stigmas and social conditions in relating to FGM in Nigeria are at best problematic in that regard.

The extended family consider the adherence to custom is more important than the permission of the parents, they would view not having the children mutilated as akin to socially disenfranchising them and lowering their status in later life, they believe FGM is for the children own good. That mindset is abundant in Nigeria which of course explains FGMs prevalence. Its akin to arranged marriages culturally.

If we can cut through all the bullshit that is what this case is all about, primarily safe guarding the welfare of two children. Every other consideration is subservient to that.

[supamolli]

[quote=hopi watcher;1557725]

Prevalence is not sufficient for pleading an FGM as a case for asylum
QUOTE]

It most certainly is

No, it isn't just like the prevalence of forced sterilisation of women in China is not sufficient for pleading a case of asylum simply if you are a woman from China.

You need evidence of a clear danger in the specific case so if you were from the Uyghur ethnic group in China your chances would improve.

What is the evidence in this case other than the now discredited death certificate?

[hopi watcher]

[quote=supamolli;1557744]

No, it isn't just like the prevalence of forced sterilisation of women in China is not sufficient for pleading a case of asylum simply if you are a woman from China.

You need evidence of a clear danger in the specific case so if you were from the Uyghur ethnic group in China your chances would improve.

What is the evidence in this case other than the now discredited death certificate?

Flight from FGM is grounds for asylum in many countries and prevelance is the yardstick, that is why the UN and Amnesty go to the bother of collecting such data.

[Kevin Doyle]

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?

I thought we were talking about the UK? You introduced those statistics to suggest that the location of the kids is irrelevant in this issue, but as highlighted consent is given in cases in the UK.

So we can see at least that your introduction of these stats in relation to PIs case a red herring.

[supamolli]

[quote=hopi watcher;1557752]

Flight from FGM is grounds for asylum in many countries and prevelance is the yardstick, that is why the UN and Amnesty go to the bother of collecting such data.

Only if the following criteria for a refugee are met:
(1) proof of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution,
(2) proof of membership in a race, religion, nationality, or social group or belief in a political opinion, and
(3) proof that the well-founded fear of persecution is “on account of” the applicant’s membership in the protected class of individuals.

Prevalence is most certainly not the yardstick, the opposite is the case as otherwise every woman in China could claim asylum on grounds of the prevalence of forced sterilisation. These criteria are what matters.

Where is the evidence that this woman meets them?

[Kevin Doyle]

[quote=supamolli;1557761]

Only if the following criteria for a refugee are met:
(1) proof of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution,
(2) proof of membership in a race, religion, nationality, or social group or belief in a political opinion, and
(3) proof that the well-founded fear of persecution is “on account of” the applicant’s membership in the protected class of individuals.

Prevalence is most certainly not the yardstick, the opposite is the case as otherwise every woman in China could claim asylum on grounds of the prevalence of forced sterilisation. These criteria are what matters.

Where is the evidence that this woman meets them?

Wow, your ability to conflate issues is staggering. Explains your confusion.

[supamolli]

[quote=Kevin Doyle;1557772]

Wow, your ability to conflate issues is staggering. Explains your confusion.

It's from the US Supreme Court discussing the issue of FGM, where' s your argument coming from?

[corelli]

[quote=hopi watcher;1557752]

Flight from FGM is grounds for asylum in many countries and prevelance is the yardstick, that is why the UN and Amnesty go to the bother of collecting such data.

It is a ground for asylum here too. You fail to understand the proper legal framework though, with respect.

You have to have proof of a specific threat in your particular circumstances in addition to the failure of the State to protect you, which would entail a complaint to the relevent authorities, which Pamela did not do, and additionally, proof that you could not internally relocate.

Pamela has failed to meet all these criteria as evinced by her failure twice before the High Court.

If you did not have to have proof of a specific threat why do you think Pamela procured the death certificate, fake or not. Methinks she may have a better understanding of the legalities than you!!

[corelli]

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

The simple reason we do not extend people such as Pamela sanctuary is because of its impracticability. It would be a very humane approach to offer every african teen sanctuary because of the prevalence of FGM but its totally impractical and non-sensical. You do see that?