Originally Posted by Metric

Do we even know who these people were who suppposedly killed her daughters? Why has she not informed the relevant Nigerian authorities of the murder?

Originally Posted by Kevin Doyle

Of course it matters. It is an essential component of your precedent argument, so far you have offered nothing to back up your claims that allowing these children to stay would open the flood gates.

Originally Posted by DaveM

I'm not a lawyer but I would have thought that the case boils down to the UN Convention Against Torture. If the court believes that these two girls are "more likely than not" to be subjected to an act of torture if they are sent back to Nigeria then Ireland is legally obliged to to grant them asylum.

The figures for the prevalence of FGM in Nigeria, as provided by the Nigerian government themselves to the UN, and referred to previously on this thread are shocking. The national average is 32.6% and this figure rises to above 60% in some areas.

The implications of the falsification of documents are not as simple as it would seem. When one considers the legal obligation on Ireland to protect persons in danger of being subjected to torture is deported back to their home country and the risk factors based on the statistics provided by the Nigerian government this case remains very much in the balance.

As I've said before I believe basic human decency dictates that two innocent children should not be returned to a country where they face a 1 in 3 chance of being subjected to a disgustingly inhumane act like FGM. I believe Ireland has a moral obligation to protect them and they should be allowed to stay.

Originally Posted by corelli

Not bad for an amateur lawyer!

Criminal Justice, UN Convention against Torture Act, 2000.

4.—(1) A person shall not be expelled or returned from the State to another state where the Minister is of the opinion that there are substantial gounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
(2) For the purposes of determining whether there are such grounds, the Minister shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.


Notwithstanding the above, which the Minister has to consider, it is merely the enunciation of the age old principle of non-refoulement which always has to be considered under the Refugee Act.

This Act adds nothing substantive in terms of what the minister is obliged to consider. Neither he nor the courts obviously believes Pamela. You might also note the word "substantial grounds" in the paragraphs above.

Originally Posted by hopi watcher

You repeatedly fail to address the issue of 'basic human deceny' Why any one would want to make a case to justify exposing two children to mutilation is beyond comprehension. it really is that simple.This scaremongering, that should we do the decent thing and show humanitarian compassion, the outfall will be a deluge of immigrents is just a silly diversion. A humanitarian decision does not in any way dilute our existing laws or preclude us from addressing any issue that arises particularly with regard to any threat to the integrity of the State.

Originally Posted by corelli

We are talking about the law of the land, which we are all obliged to obey, and someone trying to get around same by uttering forged documents. It's not about "fairness" or whatever amorphous wording you care to use. Its about justice. The law is the law. It applies equally to everyone. She tried to subvert it and got caught. She would appear to have absolutely no evidence to support her claim and, comparatively, a fairly decent standard of living in Nigeria. I would not worry for one second of anything happening to her children when they arrive back home in Nigeria.

Originally Posted by hopi watcher

Wrong, we are talking about human compassion. Laws are fallible. In this case the Minister can and should allow the children to remain on humanitarian grounds. Regarding your certainty, neither the UN or Amnesty concur. But then, it's not your genitalia that is going to be mutilated if your hunch happens to be wrong. A really brave call.

Originally Posted by corelli

You would appear quite gullible on this issue for an otherwise intelligent poster, I would have to say. No amount of reason will change your mind. Can you not see that, on the balance of probabilities, she is telling massive porkies?

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

It doesn't hold water that to escape FGM, you leapfrog multiple safe EU states before arriving in Ireland. It's economic-migration fullstop.