National Day of Action Against Racism

by Residents Against Racism Tue May 24, 2005 12:34

Bring banners, placards, flags and noise

by Davy Carlin - Chairperson Anti Racism Network Tue May 24, 2005 12:58

And will be attending. See ya there

by j Fri Jun 10, 2005 02:12

After watching RTEs Prime Time this evening, the need for this demonstration is more pressing. I for one will be encouraging all I know to support this action. Lets make our voices loud and clear!

by PseudoNom Fri Jun 10, 2005 02:31

(• Stop the deportations
• Give asylum seekers the right to work
• Take the asylum system out of the politicians’ hands
• Take the work permits away from the employer)


Why don't you condense this diatribe. i recommend:

ABOLISH IRISH IMMIGRATION LAWS

(uniquely on this planet)

and

ABDICATE ASYLUM CLAIMS.

(recommended for those who consider the legal interpretation, of the 1951 Convention, a little too constrictive for their niche agendas).

by Devil Dog Fri Jun 10, 2005 03:16

Apparently, Kunle's buddy out in Palmerstown is here claiming asylum to avoid being the victim of human sacrifice.

Does anyone in RAR actually believe this codswallop?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0609/3320699046HM6PALMERSTOWN.html

by threadwatch Fri Jun 10, 2005 04:34

That issue has already been dealt with here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70092&condense_comments=false#comment110426

...which is precisely why you are ignoring that thread and not responding to the information linked to there. Instead you are just repeating your untruths here.

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:21

Excellent Prime Time last night. All the racist posters have nothing to counter it with.

I'll see you all on the 18th

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:36

It was excellent. Horrific coverage of a girl having FGM performed on her. It shows the asylum system to be unjust, unfair and unworkable.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0609/primetime.html

by Michael Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:06

The poor sods, they don't know why they have been deported. Ehhhhh.....maybe it was because they made a false claim for asylum. That bit was quite amusing where the woman thought she couldn't organise somewhere to live in Lagos, but she could come and be a fraudster in Ireland. They hid their children in here.....how come RTE could find them? Smells a little fishy to me.

Whilst FGM is disgusting, it is not widespread throughout the whole of Nigeria. They could have selected another part of Nigeria to live in.....instead they picked on the well worn path to Ireland.

Pure and utter rubbish

by PseusoNom Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:27

Interesting program alright.

The woman who fled to Ghana and fell on a boat to Ireland. Could have claimed asylum in Ghana but that would make far too much sense.

The man in Ireland whose family was deported (returned) to Nigeria. Any idea what he was claiming asylum from? No? Neither did Prime Time. This FGM lark is very useful for every single female in Nigeria (despite the practice being illegal in Nigeria, Unlike here).

As the previous poster pointed out, the inexplicable abililty of RTE to find those "fleeing" the prospect of being deported and all "asylum seekers" willingness to have themselves exhibited on national TV.

As for wheeling out manipulated kids and showing scenes of FGM. Truly disgusting cheap and indefensible propaganda.

There is a story about asylum in Nigeria. It tells how a country on the furthest periphery of Europe, with no connection physically or historically, is the largest single recipient of bogus asylum claims from that country. It tells why they come here, how they come here, who they pay and what they expect.

Pity PrimeTime missed it.

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Jun 10, 2005 13:56

Prime Time was excellent. The truth emerged. Little racist boys here are now foaming at the mouth (again). Prime Time showed that Nketchie was deported unjustly, and her case was valid. The solicitors painted a truthfull picture of how the appeals tribunal is not a fair and transparent system. The programme also went into detail about how the WHO believe that 50% of Nigerian women have had the brutal procedure performed on them. It was truly an excellent piece of investigative journalism, yet again, from Prime Time. Only the racist irrelevant trolls here disagree, but who cares about them! Leave them foam at the mouth, everyone else ignores them.

by Michael Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:21

Sherlock,

No grounds for asylum here!!!!! Nigeria features some of the most bogus people in Africa - their connection to Ireland - none!

Their first safe destination - not Ireland - checkmate - no grounds for asylum.

I hope the government find their children and send them back to them.

by Racist watcher Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:34

Can we have the above comment deleted it is racist
"Nigeria features some of the most bogus people in Africa".

It is a disgracefull comment ,untrue, and the author is clearly nothing more than a racist. Please delete it

by PseudoNom Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:37

Sherlock, heres a few questions. Perhaps you can deduce some answers.

Do Irish people perform FGM or Nigerian people?

If you think the answer might be the former, can you explain what unique responsibility Ireland has to those who are subject to this procedure?

Should we repatriate the 25 million or so females that have never had this procedure to Ireland?

Should we then instigate a family re-unification programme and add another 75 million or so?

Wouldnt it be easier for you to run Nigeria than import it?

As the program stated, FGM is ILLEGAL in Nigeria.

FGM is not ILLEGAL in Ireland.

Discuss.

by Shelock Holmes Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:48

As the Prime Time documentary showed WHO said the procedure was still widespread in Nigeria. It is not widespread in Ireland, and neither has there been any proof that FGM has been carried out in Ireland.

What kind of fool are you to think that everyone in Nigeria wants to come here.? What kind of gombeen are you.?
What a ridiculous belief system you have.

Yes we do have a duty to protect those who seek our protection. Whats the matter for you? 1951 Geneva convention too restrictive for you?

You have published the solution to stopping asylum claims from Nigeria. Deal with the reasons why they are forced to leave Nigeria in the first place.

Prime Time showed our little southside toff up for what he is, nothing more than a lying racist

by PseudoNom Fri Jun 10, 2005 15:07

(As the Prime Time documentary showed WHO said the procedure was still widespread in Nigeria. It is not widespread in Ireland, and neither has there been any proof that FGM has been carried out in Ireland.)

And as I pointed out, Irish people have neither the means nor the authority to do anything about this. Nigeria does. Nigeria made it illegal.

(What kind of fool are you to think that everyone in Nigeria wants to come here.? What kind of gombeen are you.?
What a ridiculous belief system you have.)

I am merely extrapolating the absurdity of your belief system that seems to believe that Ireland is the epicentre of a solution to FGM in the most populous country in Africa.

(Yes we do have a duty to protect those who seek our protection. Whats the matter for you? 1951 Geneva convention too restrictive for you?

No, if we accept a claim that qualifies, I don't mind. If we do not, off they go. No crocodile tears.

(You have published the solution to stopping asylum claims from Nigeria. Deal with the reasons why they are forced to leave Nigeria in the first place. )

I dont process claims. That multi million racket I contribute to does. Nonetheless, I accept the decision. You don't.

(Prime Time showed our little southside toff up for what he is, nothing more than a lying racist.)

Did Prime Time feature a "southside toff". Must have missed that.

Actually, I think their is a large measure of racism in the blanket portrayal of black Nigerians as inferior beings, incapable of running their own societies in a civilised manner, no matter what they do and the only solution being to encourage them to "flee" to any country run by white Europeans - preferably Ireland.

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Jun 10, 2005 15:17

Yes McDowell did have comments that were included last night. Perhaps you should watch it again. The link is above. http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0609/primetime.html Ireland has a duty, both morally and legally, to protect those in need. Our asylum system was shown to be unjust and completely lacking of transparency. It showed that they rejected a "genuine" case.

What it boils down to is that you don't want any asylum seekers in Ireland. Don't pretend like your so interested and caring of other peoples human rights. You haven't even commented on Nketchie's case, she was unjustly deported. Why don't you begin a campaign to have Nigeria deal with it's human rights abuses.? Why don't you join amnesty?

by Marcus Fri Jun 10, 2005 15:49

What will your propaganda show achieve for you - nothing! Most people I've talked to were not moved in the slightest. These people lied upon their arrival here, they then duly failed to be recognised as refugees. Now they have been sent home, and will stay there!

Shortly their children will be sent back too. As earlier posters have mentioned, Ireland was not the first safe country they could have sought refuge in, this means we didn't even have to listen to their claim in the 1st place.

by Ha Ha Ha Fri Jun 10, 2005 15:58

Your living in a dream. Their cases were genuine and therefore they were deported illegaly. They did not lie as you claimed, you are in fact the one who is lying. As for your other point. The truth is not propaganda. Your kind of racist diatribe has been exposed for the lie it is. Now you, and people like you are foaming at the mouth. Tough Shit.

You should read the Dublin convention before making stupid comments, then look at the countries who are part of the EU.

Prime Time has already begun to have affect. People I have talked to have been shocked and appaled by what the government is doing.

by PseudoNom Fri Jun 10, 2005 18:15

I see you dont want to challenge my answers - even the one where I suggest your niche racism is showing by casting Nigerians as sub-humans, hell bent on mutilating each others genitals.

Ha Ha Ha

When I see the word liar and lies several times in a post, I smile.

The program showed no genuine case that required super-national protection.

It did show Nigerians living away from the persecution they alleged, within their own country.

It also showed that they failed to claim asylum in the first safe country they entered.

Or did I miss something?

by Emma RAR Sat Jun 11, 2005 18:34

For the ignorant racists not that it will achieve anything anyway-

Women and children cannot apply for asylum in Ireland on the basis they have suffered or will suffer FGM if deported. The Irish government refuse to acknowlege FGM as a political act therefore women cannot apply on those grounds which is a disgrace. Unlike other European countries Ireland does not have legislation to protect women from FGM so therefore FGM is not strictly illegal in Ireland.
In Nigeria FGM was outlawed in certain states but it is not inforced by the government which in each state is controlled by local government , Nigeria is under a Military dictatorship. state, local government, police are all corrupt and it is a very violitile country.
FGM is not a religious or cultural practice, its an issue of human rights. Only two women have been given refugee status on the grounds oF FGM which is ridiculous.
Well over 50% of women are mutilated in Nigeria and of those 50% a half bleed to death afterwards, the age of women and children who are mutilated vary from a few days old to just before marriage or childbirth.
Women and children should be granted automatic refugee status on the grounds they have suffered or will suffer FGM if deportation.

FGM is the removal or part removal of the clitoris. In Nigeria there are three main types performed which are : Clitorectomy (sunna) where the clitoral hood with part or all the clitoris is removed. Excision: where both the clitoris with part ot all the labia minora are removed. Infibulation (most severe) where both the clitoris and labia minore are removed and incisions are made on the labia majora creating a raw surface. These surfaces are sewn or pinned together leaving only a tiny pinhole opening for urine and menstaul blood.

The conditions of FGM often result in death; the mutilation in the majority of cases is performed by an untrained midwive in the most appalling unhygenic circumstances without anaestetic. Blunt and insterile objects such as razor blades, broken glass and sharp stones are used, which can lead to infections and HIV/AIDS.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 11, 2005 19:02

And my point remains that Ireland does not have the solution to this problem. Programs such as the Prime Time travesty somehow forgot to mention the efforts of Nigerian people to eliminate this practice.

That, Emma, is either bone headed ignorance, outright bias or racism.

Take your pick.

The tone of your post suggests that it is racism to point this out. No surprise. RAR propaganda requires no less, than to elevate Africans when they are here and condemn them as inferior beings when they are at home.

So, for the record:

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10106.htm

Much is being done to combat this practice. The campaign against FGM/FGC has long been waged, for the most part, by international, national and non-governmental organizations. IAC/Nigeria holds meetings and programs in both urban and rural communities throughout the country to inform the public about this subject. It uses videos, booklets and the mass media to reach school age children.

In 1997, outreach programs on the dangers of this practice were intensified. In the states of Osun and Bayelsa, nurses and midwives were trained about the harmful health effects and how to select, train and supervise TBAs. There was extensive community outreach to men, women, school children and health workers. Anatomical models, films and posters were used. Posters were distributed in villages.

Also actively campaigning against this practice are the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives, the Nigerian Medical Women’s Association and the Nigerian Medical Association. These three groups in particular are against the legitimization of this practice as a medical necessity for females and are working to inform all Nigerian health practitioners about the harmful effects of the practice. The National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives created a national information package about the harmful effects of the various procedures.

WHO, UNDP, DFID of Great Britain and Daneco of Sweden are actively funding Nigerian NGOs in addressing this practice. International organizations have adopted plans of action to eradicate these practices in Nigeria. WHO has a three-year short-term plan (1996-1998); an eight-year medium-term plan (1999-2006); and a nine-year long-term plan to eventually eliminate this practice from Nigeria and the rest of Africa.


Nurses and pediatricians have long campaigned against this practice. They have campaigned nationwide starting with national workshops in Lagos. Trainers were trained who in turn conducted informational activities about this practice at the state and local community levels. A variety of methods were used to get the message across as to the harmful effects. These included dramas, community mobilizations, national television talk shows, radio broadcasts, articles in newspapers, etc. The once taboo subject is now discussed in the open.

The government has publicly opposed this practice. Government officials have voiced their support for the campaign against FGM/FGC. Both the Federal Health Ministry and the Federal Ministry of Women’s Affairs support the nationwide study on this issue.

In conjunction with a number of House State Assembly members, medical workers, attorneys and NGO representatives, WOPED organized a national policy symposium on FGM/FGC in May 2000. The symposium revealed that over the past decade both government ministries and NGOs have been active and mutually collaborative in studying how to end this practice. However, little has been accomplished beyond the recommendation stage.

Nigeria was one of five countries that sponsored a resolution at the forty-sixth World Health Assembly calling for eradication of harmful traditional practices, including FGM/FGC.

Most NGOs working on this issue claim that helping traditional communities change their cultural folklore is necessary to end this practice. Proverbs, songs, theatrical and dance performances and other cultural activities have reinforced this practice for centuries. The NGOs also point out that efforts to end the practice will fail unless Nigerian men learn that uncircumcised women are marriageable, will not be promiscuous and are not poor risks as mothers.

DFID of Great Britain is working with IAC/Nigeria on a pilot project with ten excisors. The excisors were educated about the criminalization of FGM/FGC in their state. DFID then purchased deep freezers and ice cream makers for each excisor to start her own business in her community. In each case, the excisor has been earning enough to replace her former practice of FGM/FGC as her source of income. When families have brought their daughters to them to be circumcised, they are refusing to refer them to others still practicing and have even threatened to bring in the authorities if the families try to pursue the operation.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with members of the Women’s Caucus of the National Assembly in addressing women’s health issues, including this problem. The Calvary Foundation based in Enugu State was awarded a grant of US$20,000 from the U.S. Embassy’s Democracy and Human Rights Fund to continue its campaign to ban this practice in five southeastern states.

by Anti-racists Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:49

Could you please delete any racist filth that PseudoNom is posting not platform for fascists.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 14:41

Smile all you want at posts, don't for a second think it was me that posted under ha ha ha.

Now I see that instead of you being a racist it is anti racists who are the true anti racists. We have now gone from a situation that these asylum seekers aren't genuine to a situation where they are genuine but you still don't care.

WHO figures show that FGM is still widespread in Nigeria. Prominent anti FGM campaigner Juliet was forced to claim asylum after the persecution she suffered in Nigeria campaigning against it. FGM is deeply ingrained into the psyche in many parts of Nigeria. Having it outlawed without any willingness on the part of the Nigerian government is utterly useless, it is akin to this governments know racism campaign, a waste of money.

Again it is utterly irrelevant that they passed through Ghana it does not affect their asylum application here in the slightest. We receive applicants from Ghana also. I said this earlier. You clearly missed it. The programme clearly showed their cases were just. They were deported illegally, you are refusing to recognise this because you are a racist. You are obviously delusional enough to post here that you are not a racist but anti racists are. What next black=white. No anti racist calls Nigerians inferior beings, they say that Nigeria is a corrupt, unsafe country. Ireland does not even recognise Nigeria as a safe country. You on the other hand say Nigerian asylum seekers are bogus. Prime Time showed the truth.

Again a few questions for you:

Those fleeing persecution need are protection
Whats wrong the 1951 geneva convention too restrictive for you?

Why don't you join amnesty since you are so concerned with human rights?

Why don't you post saying what you really believe, that is you don't want any asylum seeker in Ireland?

Why do you, when confronted with the truth, instead of admitting you are wrong, change your argument with yet more irrelevancy and outright ill informed bull shit?

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 14:53

From your link, which shows that Nigeria is not a safe country one piece "There is no federal laws banning FGM/FGC in Nigeria" http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10106.htm

And the link to Prime Time which again shows Irelands asylum system to be absolutely farcical.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0609/primetime.html

Here's a Sunday Indo piece on Prime Time

Bring home Ireland's deported children
Sunday Independent, 12/6/2005 - Gene Kerrigan

THIS is far, far worse than what was done to Frank McBrearty Junior and his family. This is about the treatment of a nine-year old child. The McBreartys, publicly vindicated, can recover from the damage wreaked on them by a corrupt justice system. Chidinma Okolie may not be so lucky.

In the Dail on Tuesday, March 22, less than three months ago, Seymour Crawford TD asked the Minister 'This is about brutality beyond our experience, involving people in jeopardy who need every possible break'

for Justice, Michael McDowell, about the deportation of Nkechi Okolie and her family to Nigeria.

Mr McDowell told the Dail that "this family's case was examined carefully" and that they were "not entitled to refugee status or humanitarian leave to remain". In such cases, he said, "every leniency is given" and that Ireland has "a system that is the fairest in the world".

Last Thursday, Prime Time broadcast an investigation that cast serious doubt on Mr McDowell's claims about that case.

Nkechi Okolie and her three children were in Ireland for over three years. On Prime Time, with common decency, the adults and children of Castleblaney testified that the family were model citizens. In the cases of the two younger children, Chidinma, 9, and Chukka, 6, they lived the greater part

of their formative years here. There was shock in the area when they were thrown out.

Nkechi Okolie was subjected to genital mutilation as a child - as are half of all Nigerian women. She applied for refugee status on the basis that, if she returned to her home place, nine-year old Chidinma would suffer the same fate from relatives who believe in, and enforce, the practice.

This case was heard and rejected by the Refugee Applications Commission and then the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It was then assessed under Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999, and rejected. The family was put on a charter flight to Lagos on March 14 last.

Keelin Shanley from Prime Time went to Lagos and found them in a one-room shack, from which they have not stirred in over two months, all four sharing one bed. They will not seek aid from relatives because Chidinma's legs will be spread apart, and while she screams the tip of her clitoris will be cut off. (The notion is that this reduces sexual pleasure for the woman and ensures her fidelity.)

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal considered this central aspect of the family's claim to be allowed stay in Ireland. It answered: "If the basis of the applicant's claim is her fear resulting from an apprehension of female genital mutilation, then it's inexplicable why the applicant would choose to leave her [other] daughter behind and potentially expose her to risk."

And Nkechi Okolie did indeed leave another daughter, 16-year-old Ifeanyi, behind at boarding school when she fled the country following extreme religious violence. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal was obviously influenced by the fact that the mother left one daughter in danger of genital mutilation while bringing the other daughter to Ireland allegedly for safety.

Keelin Shanley spoke to Ifeanyi, and produced medical certification that the child was genitally mutilated at the age of three. Her mother left her behind at boarding school because she believed that was the best thing for her, and she was beyond risk of genital mutilation.

The Refugee Appeal Tribunal's argument on this central issue in the Okolie appeal was demolished.

Prime Time went on to examine other cases - such as James, the child born in Drogheda, deported to Nigeria, where he has no legal status and exists on charity. He and his mother were kicked out despite the fact that a court ruled that his father should not be deported.

This is our country. This is what we do to people in extreme need. The inconsistencies, the families broken up, the children still here - on the run from the police and sleeping in a different place every night. The State official who told the programme: "I don't believe the State has a responsibility to them".

Yes, one small island cannot take all of the world's troubled children, and hard decisions must be made - but that doesn't absolve us from both a moral and a legal obligation to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of these people. The programme raised awkward questions.

How could the Refugee Appeals Tribunal miss the fact that Ifeanyi had been genitally mutilated 13 years earlier? Why didn't anyone notice that the basis of the appeal rejection was factually flawed? How deep do these examinations of cases go? This isn't like an Irish lad conning US Immigration because he wants to stay on in Boston an extra year or two since he's having great crack. These are people on the very edge of life. They have lived here for two, three and four years; they are not chancers.

Nkechi Okolie wants to stop a blade being placed between her child's legs. If that kid's relatives find her in Lagos, she will be mutilated. There's no room for mistakes.

Why are we "fast-tracking" Nigerians back to an unsafe destination?

Is it true, as one solicitor said, that with fast-tracking "the quality of the decision-making goes down"?

Is it true that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal makes its decisions on the basis of written submissions, so it doesn't meet the applicants?

Is it not a matter of concern when a solicitor says, as one did on the show: "I haven't seen a single fast-track appeal that was successful"?

Or that the same solicitor said that when he sees the initials of a certain official on a decision he knows before he reads it that the appeal has failed?

Is it true that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal aren't published - and that this deprives applicants and their lawyers from examining a body of precedents? There was a suggestion that if the decisions were published we might see, as one solicitor said, which, if any, official "never gives positive" decisions. That can't be true, can it?

Apart from these concerns, and the inconsistencies, we know from Olunkunle Eluhanla's case that Mr McDowell doesn't read the files when a Section 3 decision is being made on whether to allow applicants remain on humanitarian or other grounds. We know he leaves that to officials. Leaving aside whether he has a right to leave semi-judicial decisions to officials, we know from the Eluhanla case that a wrong decision can be, and was, made. We know that the Appeals Tribunal's decision in the Okolie case is questionable, at the very least.

In other circumstances, such alarm signals would be enough. The power of Prime Time's programme would be enough. An appeal to the Minister would be enough. The evidence is, that in this case, it's not so.

Michael McDowell's role in deportations has been personalised to a degree that makes the process of review impossible. No doubt Mr McDowell's personal style contributes to this - but so might the Opposition's response to him, and perhaps we in the media are also to blame. It doesn't matter who's to blame. This cannot continue to be a matter over which Mr McDowell has sole command.

His recent outburst, in which he regretted having to stick to due process, betrays an emotional involvement that is not healthy.

Only the Taoiseach can institute an independent review of the system. This is about brutality beyond our experience, involving people in jeopardy who need every possible break. It's clear they're not getting that.

In the meantime, bring them back. Quietly, with no one crowing, no fingers pointed at Michael McDowell or anyone else. Let the kids on the run come out of hiding, give them their mothers. Chidinma has already had malaria. Bring them home.

And here's a TV review from the Indo

TV Review, Irish Independent, 11/6/2005
With the documentary series on Charles Haughey due to begin next week, ....

Like many other people, I was gobsmacked recently when I heard Justice Minister Michael McDowell tell a Dail committee what he'd do about "bogus asylum seekers" if he was allowed his way: "I would much prefer to have a system where I could have interviews at the airport, find out the cock-and-bull story and say: you're going home on the next flight. But unfortunately the UN convention requires me to go through due process."

On Thursday night's Prime Time (RTE1), reporter Keelin Shanley travelled to Nigeria to hear the "cock-and-bull" stories of families who had lived in Ireland for some years and were then summarily deported on a flight to Lagos last March - just one of many such flights.

The film made you distressed and angry at the unfairness, lack of transparency and sheer brutality of the methods by which we deal with human beings who, at the very least, have a persuasive case for why they should have been allowed to remain in Ireland.

Michael McDowell would no doubt argue that viewers were being emotionally manipulated by watching and listening to these women and children telling their stories, but there seemed to be nothing cock-and-bull about what was being recounted. I ended up feeling just as bewildered as the people being interviewed. And ashamed, too.

Tuesday night's Prime Time, though, seemed much ado about very little. This informed us that Solpadeine, "the nation's favourite medicine" (we spent €10.4m on it last year), contains codeine, ....

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 13, 2005 17:06

("There is no federal laws banning FGM/FGC in Nigeria" )

So what? Nigeria is a federation of contiguous sovereign States.

(Again it is utterly irrelevant that they passed through Ghana it does not affect their asylum application here in the slightest.)

Wrong. Section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996.

http://www.orac.ie/PDF/PDFCustService/Law/refugee+act+1996.pdf

Now at this point, I will point out that the safe country principle applies as it implies safety from the PERSECUTION claimed in a country that is a signatory to the 1951 convention. Try remember this.

(Prime Time showed the truth.)

Lets examine one case so.

Going on the Prime Time report, because, as I have learned to my surprise at times, arguing from my perspective is uniquely expected to be forensically accurate, Nketchie "fled" Nigeria because of fear of FGM being carried out on her daughter in the Delta state province of Northern Nigeria where (I cannot assume) she claimed to originate from. (for some reason, RTE did not manage to establish this elementary fact either way.)

She arrived in Ghana.

If she went overland (because we are not told by RTE how this transpired), she travelled through Toga and Benin. Both countries are signatories to the 1951 asylum convention.

On her arrival in Ghana (another signatory to the 1951 asylum convention). Nketchie, having now missed at least one, if not three possible opportunities to submit an asylum claim on - behalf of her daughter, wilfully engaged and paid a trafficker to take her and her children, specifically to Ireland, where she finally submited a claim for asylum and began a 3 year, taxpayer funded life, while her claim was processed.

Not all her children mind, because Nketchie left another daughter in boarding school in Nigeria. Not in the Muslim Kano state oddly, but in Christian Lagos.

By now, I am wondering, how many Nigerians (never mind Irish people) can afford to send a child to boarding school a couple of hundred miles away.

Nketchie then funded a trafficker, in a distant transit country, to spirit the remainder of their families into the furthest periphery of Western Europe, on some mysterious ship.

RTE splashed out and show actual footage - of a mysterious ship. (Someone there obviously liked ships because to illustrate the poverty gap in Nigeria and the lives of the fabulously rich, we were treated to what looked like a dinghy.)

Next, RTE "screened" a copy of the letter giving the reasons why Nketchie was refused asylum (though let’s not forget, it's her daughter who is the key as she admits to having been circumcised herself).

RTE sequestered one sentence.

It dealt with whether or not Nketchie’s credibility was an issue based on another daughters FGM, but this is misleading as it is clearly taken out of context.

Although RTE failed to highlight any other reason from the letter as to why the claim was rejected, and presented this as a pivotal aspect, text can still be read challenging her credibility based on a statement by her husband and also challenging her refusal to settle in Lagos (where, lest we forget, she was happy enough to engage and fund a boarding school for her other daughter - and where FGM is illegal), which would afford her the protection she claimed - for her daughter without any requirement to leave Nigeria.

(seems Gene Kerrigan, in the only article I have seen swallowing this report, wasn't watching it too closely)

As to her husband, where is he, how he was interviwed for the claim, no mention and no questions.

There is I assume, more than one paragraph explaining this rejection.

RTE has a mandate to promote informed and fair reporting on this and other equally contentious and complicated issues.

RTE deserted that mandate in favour of promoting at least one fundamentally flawed asylum claim, based on a single sentence, of an expensively investigated, overall conclusion - derived from an already wealthy applicant, trading on her daughter, who specifically targeted Ireland, inexplicably, over transit countries, through traffickers, for the "protection" that she was, for reasons left completely unexplained, unwilling to seek in either Nigeria, Benin, Togo or Ghana - in line with UNHCR criteria for the submission of legitimate applications for refugee status, at first instance.

At no point did she claim her daughter was at risk where she now resides in Nigeria.

RTE failed to mention the other 30 odd deportees for some strange reason.

That’s without the full facts as without the full contents of the rejection letter, we cannot claim to have them.

I welcome more.

Intelligent debate welcome Sherlock, on topic,

In your own time.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 17:42

Ghana is not a designated safe country in Ireland. Also being a signatory to the 1951 convention does not make you a safe country. Nigeria is also a signatory to the 1951 convention, as is Sudan, a point you seem to have excluded. Why?

As for the other two countries, who said she went through them. Why do you constantly introduce irrelevant things which you have no proof?


The fact that her daughter was in boarding school is irrelevant, as is her previous financial circumstances. It is pretty obvious that in a society such as Nigeria the males in the family control the finances. Why are you ignoring this fact?

Also what was relevant was the fact that the daughter was circumcised when she was 3. This was crucial in dealing with Nketchie's case. This was also the reason she was rejected (It's covered in the programme) and is the reason a court case is coming up on the issue. Why are you ignoring this fact, and again bringing in irrelevant points?

She was fleeing to get away from her husband and his family. Why would you take her husbands statement into account when he and his family wanted to have FGM performed on the daughter. Why would you want to include this as proof she wasn't in need of protection?

Do you think womens aid or any other womens group would support your assertion here?
Do you want FGM performed on her daughter?
Do you think the wishes of the husband should override Nketchie and her daughters fears?

As for RTE. The documentary adequately covered those deported. It is quite obvious why it would be impossible to track down and interview all those previously deported. Those who were interviewed were still in contact with people here in Ireland. Why is this not obvious to you?

Why, when you previously said all Nigerian asylum seekers were bogus, are you changing tact?

Why have you not answered my previous questions?

Why are you continuing to publish irrelevant details and trying to pass them off as relevant to individual cases?

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 13, 2005 18:14

(Ghana is not a designated safe country in Ireland. Also being a signatory to the 1951 convention does not make you a safe country. Nigeria is also a signatory to the 1951 convention, as is Sudan, a point you seem to have excluded. Why?)

Because, as I now state for the second time, in as many posts, the safe country aspect is being misconstrued by yourself. The relevant question is - Is Ghana a place where this individual might expect FGM to be carried out on her daughter.

(As for the other two countries, who said she went through them. Why do you constantly introduce irrelevant things which you have no proof?)

I Don't, so let me restate what I said in my last post "Nketchie, having now missed at AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT THREE possible opportunities to submit an asylum claim on - behalf of her daughter etc".

(The fact that her daughter was in boarding school is irrelevant, as is her previous financial circumstances. It is pretty obvious that in a society such as Nigeria the males in the family control the finances. Why are you ignoring this fact?)

The point I am making is that Nketchie had already been in Lagos and could have stayed there. The other point I am making is that this is not an impoverished individual without the means to do so.

(Also what was relevant was the fact that the daughter was circumcised when she was 3. This was crucial in dealing with Nketchie's case. This was also the reason she was rejected (It's covered in the programme) and is the reason a court case is coming up on the issue. Why are you ignoring this fact, and again bringing in irrelevant points?)

Because as I already pointed out, the claim was rejected for other reasons that could be made out and possibly more.

(She was fleeing to get away from her husband and his family. Why would you take her husbands statement into account when he and his family wanted to have FGM performed on the daughter. Why would you want to include this as proof she wasn't in need of protection?)

Where is her husband Sherlock, are you trying to imply that ORAC went to Nigeria and interviewd him? The PROOF Sherlock. As I have stated, if I am expected to be forensic, you might return the favour.

(Do you think womens aid or any other womens group would support your assertion here?)

What assertion? And whatever it is, ask them.

(Do you want FGM performed on her daughter?)

No more than you do. I am happy that it will not happen where she lives now and she did not contest that in the report.

(Do you think the wishes of the husband should override Nketchie and her daughters fears?)

Where are his wishes laid out, come on, the PROOF Sherlock. As I have stated, if I am expected to be forensic, you might return the favour.

(As for RTE. The documentary adequately covered those deported. It is quite obvious why it would be impossible to track down and interview all those previously deported. Those who were interviewed were still in contact with people here in Ireland. Why is this not obvious to you?)

2 questionable cases is NOT representative.

(Why, when you previously said all Nigerian asylum seekers were bogus, are you changing tact?)

I quoted the statistics. If the statistics somehow changed tact, then I guess you might have a point. Go on.......

(Why have you not answered my previous questions?)

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69951&condense_comments=false#comment110569

(Why are you continuing to publish irrelevant details and trying to pass them off as relevant to individual cases?)

In my last post, I dealt with the prime time report. If you believe it contained irrelevant details, I would probably agree with you.

by redjade Mon Jun 13, 2005 18:14

EU Urged to Act Over Female Circumcision
Stefania Bianchi

BRUSSELS, Jun 3 (IPS) - The European Union must do more to address the problem of female genital mutilation, members of the European Parliament and leading health and development agencies say.

The Donors Working Group on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), a network of public and private international agencies campaigning against the practice, and members of the European Parliament are urging the European Commission to increase its financial commitment to stop the practice of FGM/C, also known as female circumcision.

more at
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=28935

by redjade Mon Jun 13, 2005 18:31

This issue of The Soul Beat focuses on information from the network about communication related to what has been termed female genital cutting (FGC), female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision, and excision.
http://www.comminit.com/africa/soulbeat/soul-beat-39.html

Female genital mutilation
- World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

The Female Genital Cutting
Education and Networking Project
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/html/index.php

Baseline Survey on Knowledge,
Attitudes and Practices About
Female Genital Cutting in Eastern Nigeria
http://www.comminit.com/africa/strategicthinking/st2005/thinking-1196.html

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 18:35

Why are you portraying these countries as if
a.) they are safe and ?
b.) that FGM does not take place in them?

Ghana is a country where FGM is performed http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10100.htm

Benin is also covered http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10046.htm

Togo http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10111.htm

Also passing through these countries does not affect an asylum claim in Ireland. Since you insist it does, provide the link.?

As was stated her husband and his family wanted their daughter circumcised. This was covered, you are neither being forensic or particularly intelligent. Nketchie said if her husbands family found out she was in Nigeria they would come look for her. They believe she is in Ireland. Nketchie said this in the programme why are you ignoring it?

Her husband is in Nigeria why are you saying he isn't? Why are you even suggesting he is in Ireland?

You have absolutely no proof for any of your "assertions" why are you pretending you have?

Prime Time only covered three cases. There are plenty more out there which they haven't. You and McDowell attempt to say that all Nigerian asylum seekers are bogus. When confronted with the truth, and shown that the statistics are not representative of the truth, why do you change tact. Why do you do this?

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 13, 2005 18:52

(Why are you portraying these countries as if
a.) they are safe and ?
b.) that FGM does not take place in them?

Ghana is a country where FGM is performed http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10100.htm

Benin is also covered http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10046.htm

Togo http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10111.htm


And I find myself repeating myself once again as you have great difficulty with the English language, from my previous post, Is Ghana a place where this individual might expect FGM to be carried out on her daughter or not? Do they practice FGM on non-citizens or not, is it every female? do they strip search all females to be sure etc etc.


(Also passing through these countries does not affect an asylum claim in Ireland. Since you insist it does, provide the link.?)

And again from my previous posts

Section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996.

http://www.orac.ie/PDF/PDFCustService/Law/refugee+act+1996.pdf

(As was stated her husband and his family wanted their daughter circumcised. This was covered, you are neither being forensic or particularly intelligent. Nketchie said if her husbands family found out she was in Nigeria they would come look for her. They believe she is in Ireland. Nketchie said this in the programme why are you ignoring it?)

Her husband is in Nigeria why are you saying he isn't? Why are you even suggesting he is in Ireland?)

How was he interviewed Sherlock, THE PROOF FOR GOD'S SAKE.

(You have absolutely no proof for any of your "assertions" why are you pretending you have?)

As this is another wild statement, no comment.

(Prime Time only covered three cases. There are plenty more out there which they haven't. You and McDowell attempt to say that all Nigerian asylum seekers are bogus. When confronted with the truth, and shown that the statistics are not representative of the truth, why do you change tact. Why do you do this?)

Exactly how are the statistics not representative of the truth?


Redjade.

Your post is entirely relevant. The elimination of FGM is a monumental task that requires a cultural overhaul. It will take generations and aside from money, three things are required:

Education, education and education.

For a fraction of the sum we squander on bogus asylum claims, we could perhaps save millions from this fate.

Unfortunately, that's too big a concept for someone like Sherlock to comprehend.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 19:35

Ghana is not a safe country. Therfore that section is irrelevant. Why are you again producing legislation that is irrelevant to UNSAFE countries. The basis for your "assertions" is utterly and completely false.

Again I will repeat, it is completely irrelevant that she passed through Ghana. I asked you to produce evidence to back up your case, instead you produced legislation about safe countries which has no relevance to Ghana.

Why are you suggesting that her husband was interviewed in Ireland?
Where is your evidence to suggest this?
Why are you basing your entire case on an "interview" with a man who wants his daughter to have FGM performed on her?

The statistics are not representative because the interview and appeal process is fundamentally flawed. Again you don't seem to have watched the same programme so i will put the link up YET AGAIN for your benefit
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0609/primetime.html

Again your post is completely irrelevant. Your assertions based on falsehoods. Why are you attempting to pass of these falsehoods as facts?

Can you not come up with an argument without basing it on falsehoods.?

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 13, 2005 20:18

(Ghana is not a safe country. Therfore that section is irrelevant. Why are you again producing legislation that is irrelevant to UNSAFE countries. The basis for your "assertions" is utterly and completely false.

Again I will repeat, it is completely irrelevant that she passed through Ghana. I asked you to produce evidence to back up your case, instead you produced legislation about safe countries which has no relevance to Ghana.)

OK lets get over this little red herring and cut to the chase. THIS APPLICANT WAS SAFE IN NIGERIA AND REMAINS SAFE, TODAY IN LAGOS - NIGERIA - THE CHRISTIAN PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SHE WAS SUITABLY FAMILIAR WITH ALREADY, TO SEND A CHILD TO BOARDING SCHOOL and where FGM IS ILLEGAL. OK?


AT NO POINT IN THE PRIME TIME REPORT DID THIS APPLICANT STATE OTHERWISE.

This means that this asylum application ANYWHERE is going to be dismissed, whether it is IRELAND, GHANA, TOGA, AMERICA OR THE MOON, because, and read this as many times as it takes to sink through your skull, SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE SUPER-NATIONAL PROTECTION.

Is that clear enough Sherlock?

(Why are you suggesting that her husband was interviewed in Ireland?
Where is your evidence to suggest this?
Why are you basing your entire case on an "interview" with a man who wants his daughter to have FGM performed on her?)

I have made no reference to WHERE her husband was interviewed. I am as curious as you. If you read my post, and you did not, you will see in BLACK AND WHITE where I ask the question:

I QUOTE MYSELF:

"As to her husband, where is he, how he was interviwed for the claim, no mention and no questions."

Have you a problem understanding that?

Here, I'll post it again:

"As to her husband, where is he, how he was interviwed for the claim, no mention and no questions."

Now is that any clearer? or will I post it again?

The rest of your post is blather and you have neither the manners or the intelligence to address my posts based on what they actually contain - preferring your own wild sweeping and desperate misinterpretations.

So no comment.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 21:09

Gombeen,

As is shown in Prime Time, Nketchie is hiding in Lagos because if her husbands family finds out she is there then they will hunt her down.

You first of all said she
"Could have claimed asylum in Ghana but that would make far too much sense."
It was pointed out to you that Ghana was not a safe country and that it was irrelevant that she passed through there.

Then you tried to insinuate that signing the 1951 Geneva convention was proof that these countries were safe
"Now at this point, I will point out that the safe country principle applies as it implies safety from the PERSECUTION claimed in a country that is a signatory to the 1951 convention. Try remember this."
This was pointed out to be utterly false and I said that Nigeria and Sudan were signatories to the convention. Signing the declaration neither implicitly or explicitly means that those countries are safe.

Then you also included two more unsafe countries in your arguments
"she travelled through Toga and Benin. Both countries are signatories to the 1951 asylum convention."
Again neither of these countries are safe, and see point above re: 1951 convention

You then went on to say
"Because, as I now state for the second time, in as many posts, the safe country aspect is being misconstrued by yourself. The relevant question is - Is Ghana a place where this individual might expect FGM to be carried out on her daughter." Here you are changing tact and making an arse of yourself. What is relevant is whether Ghana is a safe country, and it is not a designated safe country.

You then went on to repeat a falsehood that our Refugee Act, namely section 11b means that it is relevant that she passed through Ghana.
"And again from my previous posts Section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996. http://www.orac.ie/PDF/PDFCustService/Law/refugee+act+1996.pdf"
Which again is an absolute falsehood as Ghana is not a safe country.

And then finally you now say
"OK lets get over this little red herring and cut to the chase. THIS APPLICANT WAS SAFE IN NIGERIA AND REMAINS SAFE, TODAY IN LAGOS - NIGERIA - THE CHRISTIAN PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SHE WAS SUITABLY FAMILIAR WITH ALREADY, TO SEND A CHILD TO BOARDING SCHOOL and where FGM IS ILLEGAL. OK?"
So now you see you are an utterly reprehensible creature who fucks up his arguments constantly. Nigeria is not a safe country and Nketchie stated in Prime Time that if her husbands family finds out where she is they will hunt her down. Also FGM is not illegal in Lagos, here is an extract form the US State department link YOU provided "Edo State banned this practice in October 1999. Persons convicted under the law are subject to a 1000 Naira (US$10) fine and imprisonment of six months. While opponents of the practice applaud laws like this one as a step in the right direction, they have criticized the small fine and lack of enforcement thus far.
Ogun, Cross River, Osun, Rivers and Bayelsa states have also banned the practice since 1999." As you can see Lagos State is not included there. Yet you go on and say that it is.

Hiding in Lagos does not make one safe. I will also point out article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention "" a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion and is UNABLE
OR UNWILLING TO AVAIL HIMSELF/HERSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF THAT COUNTRY or
to return there for fear of persecution".

As for her husband you said
"Where is her husband Sherlock, are you trying to imply that ORAC went to Nigeria and interviewd him? "

And yet you went on to say
"I have made no reference to WHERE her husband was interviewed."

So as everyone can see you cannot maintain a coherent, truthfull argument. You post irrelevancies, change your arguments, and constantly contradict yourself.


Now is that clear enough for you. Bugger off you absolute waste of space.

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 13, 2005 22:35

Sherlock,

I would like to reply, but as you have reduced yourself to profanity as well as fantasy to try add substance to to your fractured and clumsy attempt at debate, I will decline.

Your abuse, rage and lack of clarity mark you out as someone devoid of objectivity and balance. Thank God you are not a "racist" right?

I will take my lead from the press and the single article spawned by the program, the absence of comment in the letters pages and the virtual non-reaction of all main political parties as indicators rather than your clumsy posts.

Anyone interested in a reasonable critique of the overall Prime Time program and the reasons why it badly missed the mark, might take a look at this:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6093

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 13, 2005 23:46

What a crock of rubbish. Your way of "debating" is to contradict yourself, confuse yourself, lie, and then when you have been showed up, to claim that other people are the problem and not you. You are unable to construct a coherent and intelligent argument because everything you write is based on absolute falsehoods. Go to politics.ie its full of Fine Gael'rs. Everyone on this website will be more than glad to see the back of your idiotic delusional racist bullshit. You are an absolute waste of space and good riddance to you.

by PseudoNom Tue Jun 14, 2005 00:05

Don't worry Holmes.

I'll be back.

That's a promise.

Out.

by Rationale Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:41

How could anybody who is sane think that the discussion on the politics.ie is reasonable. RTE with a "left-liberal" agenda, thats extreme right insane chatter. Can we have that link deleted please as it links to false info, FGM is not a part of muslim culture, it is Islamophobic in the extreme to even suggest that it is. Could the editors please delete the link, as it promotes racism.

by Irrationale Tue Jun 14, 2005 18:46

Why don't you go over there and tackle the post like a big boy.

P.Ie has moderators too.

by Rationale Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:02

Many of those posts would not meet the editorial standards of this site, and as such the link to the site should not be put up.

by Chronically upset QUANDA viewer Wed Jun 15, 2005 15:58

Are treated with some welcome and pleasant banter at politics.ie for some time. PD heaven and they're with mcdowell on letting these characters stir up hatred.

When TONY/NTR etc were wholesale banned from here they migrated there.

Now they appear here as a bunch of pseudonyms to stop any practical discussions on refugge / deportation issues here.

search for posts by animcer there at www.manybloodsuckinginsects.ie to see some of the story.

Michael McDowell was inciting to hatred (again) on quanda and indulging (repeatedly) in a strange stalinesque tactic of waving around documents that the public have no other access to to prove him right and brendan howlin wrong and to prove him right and anti-deportations people wrong. What I want to know is why RTE had a camera specifically set up for him to show off his documents on this and McBrearty? Did he ask them in advance? What unexplained unforseen circumstances had programmes running ten minutes late? Who is running RTE right now???

If kids from ireland appeared at UK gates in 1950s and said wierd things like - we are being beaten in state industrial schools - the priests are raping us and the church is covering it up - what would have happened?

So Mr Dawson -Why? Why no RTE Authority Right Now? Why the camera? Do yiz still pre-screen audiences and questions?

Anyone want to transcribe last bit of Quanda - It was even more interesting than Willie O'Dea transcribed here I believe:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=25679&search_text=doktors

Boy does JB know how to do a false pass ;-)

"The reason why I am h***ing the programme"

Three letters.

Didin't hear them but want to.

Yours sincerely

Chronically upset QUANDA viewer

Until next week -----

by Del Boy 14 Wed Jun 15, 2005 16:03

What about the fact that Kunle is known to Gardai?He claims to be an orphan but has a mother in america and i think at twenty he can stand on his own feet.and he had the cheek to protest against McDowell even though he graciously/foolishly let him back in!

Since you's are doing great things for him pay for him to go on a holiday,i hear lagos is lovely at this time of year

by eeekkk Wed Jun 15, 2005 16:07

It wasn't the aliens or the BNP who deported him was it?

GFYSLF

by Residents Against Racism Wed Jun 15, 2005 16:41

Kunle does not have a criminal record, nor was he ever charged with anything criminal. His only arrest was for not having his ID.

by Unreal Wed Jun 15, 2005 17:00

How many kids in this country are living indepentently at his age, what about the orphans mother living in america, this guy makes me sick jumping around like a pop star, he should be back in lagos and people should see him for what he is

by Surreal Wed Jun 15, 2005 17:29

Yeah, isn't it sickening that a black person gets more attention than a sad, bitter little crank like you? Go off and toss yourself off over a picture of McDowell

by davy carlin Thu Jun 16, 2005 16:02

Jon Gackin and I will be down in Dublin this week end and are looking forward to the important RAR day of action - as well as meeting up with a few Dub heads afterwards

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 18, 2005 18:33

Kunles arrest and the proof, I am uniquely expected to provide.


http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/story.asp?j=309194485655&p=3x9y9448647x&n=309194486541

by Illegal Eagle Sat Jun 18, 2005 18:48

So, he was with other individuals, one of whom tried something they should not.
Who in their teenage years has not been in the company of individuals who have engaged in some mischievious incident or another? The fact that one of a group of teenagers does something wrong does not make all his mates guilty.
Maybe 'PseudoNom' has forgotten what it is like to be young.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 18, 2005 19:02

It's true.

I never entered another country illegally, lied about my age and entered the education system, submitted a claim for asylum or hung around an airport with people who were attempting to swindle money with fake passports.

I feel so empty.

by Jon Glackin Sat Jun 18, 2005 19:18

Give it a rest psadaman or whoever you are today....you are really clutching at straws again..

Quoting from your link...

Gardaí refused to comment on reports the Leaving Certificate pupil was taken into custody with another Nigerian who was caught attempting to withdraw money with a false passport.
Palmerstown Community school sixth-year coordinator and former teacher Anthony Wilkie said: “He was with a group of lads in Dublin airport. He was detained because he had no ID with him and then released the next day.
Teachers yesterday were “disgusted” by reports linking Kunle to a suspected fraud case, where a Nigerian youth tried to withdraw euro from the airport bureau de change.

“He’d nothing to do with the other business. There isn’t a teacher in the school that has a bad word for him. He’s a good average kid and he’s a grafter, building on whatever he gets,” said Mr Wilkie


Actually now I think about it cheers for the link...I found this most interesting....

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Michael McDowell has admitted he does not usually read the files of non-nationals being considered for deportation, but instead relies on summaries of the cases from his officials.
The officials prepare “a report”, or summary, containing a recommendation, which the minister then considers before deciding whether to sign a deportation order or not.

Psadaman you are really losing it!!!!

by Jon G Sat Jun 18, 2005 19:31

Thankfully such intellect as yours psadaman doesnt come around to often...

I suppose the following group of people wouldnt measure up with your intellectual capacities...

“The Teachers’ Union of Ireland views with concern the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to deport Olukunle Elunkanlo to Nigeria. The manner in which the deportation order was executed is a further cause of concern. The union has received representation from its members in Palmerstown Community School, objecting to Kunle’s deportation. The teachers point out that he to studying for his Leaving Certificate, which he hoped to sit next summer and that he was a diligent and conscientious student. His deportation will deprive him of the opportunity to sit the Leaving Certificate and deprive him of the opportunity of securing a recognised qualification. From information supplied by his teachers it appears that his deportation was on technical grounds, with scant regard being paid to humanitarian and other considerations. We ask that the relevant authorities reconsider this case, by allowing Kunle to return to this country to resume his studies. “


Further information:

Olunkunle Elukanlo arrived in Ireland in October 2001 after witnessing the murder of his father. He himself was also shot twice in the same incident.

Oh and say hi to jb.....

by PsudoNom Sat Jun 18, 2005 20:35

What exactly is your point Jon?

I had a post deleted for mentioning this piece of Kunles past. I am simply providing the evidence that I am uniquely expected to.

As to your delight in finding out that the MOJ does not process every file personally, you will also be horrified to find out that he does not attend every court case in the land either.

BTW, Congratulations on your continuing sterling work on asylum seekers in NI.

http://www.4ni.co.uk/industrynews.asp?id=30365