Youn seem to just type the first thing that comes into your head. Listen to the Colm O'Gorman's radio interview with the Nigerian ambassador.Originally Posted by sandar
The Nigerian government do back FGM simply because they refuse to criminalise it. At least I note you recognise that the place is 'unstable' I'm sure it's a wonderfiul place for children to spend their childhood.
Care to explain where I 'changed my position'?
Firstly lots of countres are politically unsyabele(nigeria is of course among the worst) but that is not grounds for granting asylum, if it were then every child from every thirdand manys econd world country would have a case, is that what you want?
Nigerias govt. should of course criminalize it, but the fact remains if they did it would have no impact on the rate of FGM in nigeria, because the governmenbt does not really control the parts off nigeria where FGM is most prevalent, those places do not pay heed to the laws of the nigerian govt.
Your poisition has chnaged from there being considerable evidence that these children were in specific danger to the fact that FGM exists in Nigeria being evidemce.
There is hardly any point in replying to what really is nothing more than waffle at this stage, however your accusation that I 'changed my position' and of being 'a liar' are not acceptable even from a waffler. Again, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion nof most rational and civilised people, a country with a 25% prevalence of mutilation poses a specific threat to the health and well being of all female children who live within that jursidiction. Put it in simpler terms. I would never allow any child under my care to get within an asses roar of the place. Would you?
most people on here and amongt he genreal population of ireland diasgree with you.
At the hieght of the trouybles in Northern Ireland about 1/4 of the populatyion of this isalnd lived in northern Ireland,,,,,and they faced a threat to their lives, and thr govt,. was unstable, does that mean that the entire population of ireland, inclding the 3/4 of the population which are governed by a different govt in the republic, should all have been eligible to fclaim asylum, even though the trheat to peoples lives affected on 1/4 and not the other 3/4ers?
I would nerver jhave any of my children livingt in a place where they are exposed to FGm, BUT i DONTthink I would acre about them living in a polplace where FGM is not a specidfc threat to them. FGM is a cultural practoce, its not practiced everywhere in nigeria, and I would have no hesitation living there.
Also I live in the UK, and would have no problemn raising my children here, and this lady can do that if she wants
Reaally all I can say to that is I accept your wish to see these children deported is not based on malice but something else that I can't get a handle on.
The evidence that Nigeria is a dangerous place for female children is fully accepted by the UN amd Amnesty and any other such agency you care to mention.
the evidence is that parts of nigeria re dangerous, but all of the laws made by everyone from the Un and the geneva convention down state that a specific threta not a general threat must be shown.
Me too, O smug one.
No, you are just plain wrong. All of Nigeria is dangerous for female childfren and this 'just parts' of the country nonsense is a red herring. So long as the Nigerian government refuse, and they have been asked to do so repeatedly, to criminalise FGM, that threat is specific and real if you happen to be a female child.
Jaysus that took a while, suggest you get a smaller dictionary!!!
no its now, according to Amnesty and others FGM is most commonly practised in the north, and is much less common in the rest of the country, as i have already said I think the nigerian govt. should crfiminalise it, but it wont make much difference unfoprtunately, because they do not have control over the notrth of the country where FGM is most commonly practiced.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks