Kate Bamidele: Don’t let them send her to her death - Protest at PD Office

by redjade Tue Aug 10, 2004 18:58

{ photos by redjade } (c)

The PD's cannot ignore a petition of hundreds...

Good crowd, good exposure, more protests to come....

by Davy Carlin Wed Aug 11, 2004 09:46

Well done RAR and all who attended, keep up the fight

by justin Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:27

Sharia Law is clearly the problem. Condemnation of it desrves equal exposure. Until it is ended women will continue to face death by stoning, etc.

by pro-asylum for kate! Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:39

Sharia Law is perhaps an issue here - or at least on how it is applied or interpreted in Nigeria - but Michael McDowell is the problem for Kate.

McDowell can prevent this woman from being stoned to death - she is in McDowell hands and she needs our support.

by Pooka Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:55

Would those fighting to keep this lady in my country be prepared to travel with her to her own country and fight for her rights there? Somehow I doubt it. After all, its so much safer here...

by redjade Wed Aug 11, 2004 15:29

Labour Party Justice Spokesperson, Joe Costello TD said that Ms Banidele's likely deportation is further evidence of "cloak-and-dagger approach to deportations and suggests a mass deportation is imminent”.

"It is ridiculous to have individual cases like this occurring again and again without any transparent structure and immigration policy as such. The manner in which such deportations are handled leaves no opportunity to contact lawyers, children are taken out of school - it causes massive disruption. I welcome the fact that Ms Banidele is now considering seeking a judicial review of the decision to deport her”, he added.

more at...

by redjade Wed Aug 11, 2004 15:30

"Instead of putting their minds at ease, he has shown his utter contempt for immigrants and their Irish children still awaiting decisions on their status by allowing for mass deportations to go ahead.

"Sinn Féin is totally opposed to mass deportations of this kind for a number of reasons not least because the courts are closed and legal representation is difficult to obtain but also because the deportations tend to take place in the darkness of night away from public view causing undue stress and trauma. This is a matter of serious concern especially given that some deportees have even been returned to Ireland because their deportation was deemed illegal.

"I also have serious concerns over the fact that there is no monitoring body here to ensure that deportations that do have to take place do so in a humane, considerate, sensitive way in order to minimize as much as possible the trauma suffered by the human beings that are transported. It is imperative that properly trained personnel accompany vulnerable women and children on these difficult and traumatic journeys to ensure full conformity with legislation and international best practice."

by Tamerlane Wed Aug 11, 2004 15:34

While condemning the PDs we should also condemn Sharia Law as barbaric. Would the abscence and silence of the SWP have anything to do with their fear of upsetting their Mullah mates?

by defendasylumseekers Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:14

Tamerlane and the "Where Were The SWP?" comment. For that matter, where were the Green Party, where were the Socialist Party? Infact, if a large number of SWP turned up, Tamerlane would on complaining that they were there. They are damned either way.
Furthermore, if Tamerlane opened his/her eyes he/she would see Rory Hearne of the SWP speaking at it.
Everyone should get behind this campaign. Ignore the sectarians...unite to defend asylum seekers.

by paul c Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:19

there is atleast implicite critism of sharia law in the statement

"Kate comes from northern Nigeria, where Shari’a law is in force. Although often referred to as ‘Islamic law’, most of the world’s Muslims do not support the imposition of Shari’a at all.

It dictates very strict rules and punishments, especially against women. Kate has three children aged between 4 and 8 from a relationship with a Christian man. In August 2002, four Shari’a policemen arrested her for having sex outside marriage, and a judge in a Shari’a court sentenced her to death by stoning. A few weeks before the stoning was to be carried out, she managed to escape from prison. Eventually a priest helped her to hide, and she managed to get out of the country and reach Ireland."

by Tamerlane Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:44

Hearne wasnt representing the SWP. The fact is that the SWP are in league with Islamic Fundamentalists and recently organised protests in support of women wearing Hijabs.

I would like to read a statement from the SWP condemning Sharia "law" as being barbaric. I wont hold my breath.

by marina Wed Aug 11, 2004 17:23

By defendasylumseekers:
"Ignore the sectarians...unite to defend asylum seekers".

Ignore sectarians? Not good advice. Sectarianism should be tackled. Going back to this issue, she should be allowed to stay but a parallel action against Sharia law must be taken or else the issue will never go away.

If you feel ambivalent about Sharia law, then why do you want her to stay here?

by eanna mac Thu Aug 12, 2004 09:40

Why? Because some people here are so full of their own self-importance and so wrapped up in their ideological straight-jacket that they've forgotten the real humanitarian issues behind this.

"Michael McDowell bad, opposite alternative good".

"Sharia Law?, bit culturally sensitive, and who cares anyway?"

by Davy Carlin Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:10

Good and extensive coverage yesterday and now today in the Irish news of the case of Kate Bamidele and RAR' support, Also the case of Olivia Ndayishimiye when the Gardi came and took the terrified woman and her daughter. Will e-mail our supporters to keep them updated of this continuing situation 'whipped' on by Injustice minister Old McDoo..

by pro-asylum for kate! Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:29

The Irish Government has spoken out against this use of sharia law. Therefore it should let Kate stay.

---
226. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the views which have been expressed by the Government on the practice of Sharia Law in the northern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. [16643/03]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): The Government has made known its deep concern about sentences of death by stoning under Sharia law to the Nigerian Federal authorities through the Nigerian Embassy in Dublin. The Irish Embassy in Abuja has also conveyed the Government’s concern about such sentences to the Nigerian authorities. It is the conviction of this Government that such sentences are in contravention of Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government is also concerned about other sentences handed down in Sharia courts, including flogging and amputations, and has called on the Nigerian Federal Government to fulfil its obligations under human rights law. The EU has also made its views known to the Nigerian federal authorities and, in August 2002, issued a declaration expressing its concern that a Sharia court of appeal had upheld a sentence of death by stoning for adultery on a woman. In September 2002, the EU issued a declaration reaffirming its opposition to the use of the death penalty and noting with deep concern the use of particularly cruel means of execution such as stoning.

by redjade Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:29

11 August 2004

Last minute plea to stop deportation of Nigerian Nimota Kate Banidele

The Green Party is calling on Minister McDowell to reconsider his decision to deport a Nigerian woman tomorrow. Nimota Kate Banidele has said that, if returned to Nigeria, she will be stoned to death under strict Sharia laws because she had three children outside marriage.

Green Party Dublin Mid West TD, Paul Gogarty, said today that, “I am asking Minister McDowell to postpone the deportation of Ms Banidele until her claim has been fully examined. If Nigeria is not a safe place for Ms Banidele she should not be sent back there.”

“We also support the Irish Refugee Council in their call for the Irish Government to honour the terms of the re-admission agreement between Ireland and Nigeria. In particular, the obligation of the Irish Government to safeguard the dignity and human rights of people during the deportation process. We also are asking the Government to ensure that ‘returned’ Nigerians are safe from any form of punishment for having sought asylum in Ireland.”

by RAR Supporter Thu Aug 12, 2004 13:52

I have emailed McDowell "as a voter" though I will never in my life vote for the corporate greed, lack of social ideals and callousness that the PDs represent.
Thank you RAR for drawing our attention to this. Best of luck Kate.

by redjade Thu Aug 12, 2004 17:08

Bamidele deportation order halted by court
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0812/bamidelen.html

12 August 2004 15:59

The High Court has granted a preliminary order to a Nigerian woman restraining the Minister for
Justice, Michael McDowell, from taking any further steps to deport her.

Nomota Bamidele, who is 39, claims she will be put to death if she returns to Nigeria.

She fled the country after she was sentenced to death by stoning under Sharia law for having three
children out of wedlock.

She arrived in Ireland in September 2002.

Her legal team has yet to ask for leave to appeal the deportation order.

by paul c Thu Aug 12, 2004 17:20

what next?

by Eoin Dubsky Thu Aug 12, 2004 17:32

Much respect to everyone who made a ruckus to help save Kate.
I knew McDowell was a right-wing nut, but to knowingly send a women to her death just cause she's had a relationship with someone? Man, the guy needs his head examined.

by Jean Dolan - none Thu Aug 12, 2004 22:43 jean.dolan at eircom dot net Dublin 18 086.3837650

Minister, you simply have to stop and listen. I am reading a book – Desert Flower, by Waris Dirie – don’t you, for one minute, think that this Nigerian lady is making a story up about what may happen to her. In fact, instead of sitting in your comfortable office, get up off your backside and go to Nigeria, Northern Nigeria, and see for yourself.

Ignorance is bliss. And you are ignorant, until you go and visit the country back to which you wish to send this lady.

Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions. Sometimes these decisions go against the grain. Sometimes we have to act as Christians.

by Starstruck - UCD Left/Grassroots Thu Aug 12, 2004 22:43

Thats superb news.
First step on bringing Fuhrer Mc Dowell back to the reality that he and the other "leaders" do not dictate who can and cant live here.
Resistance is fertile!
Good luck Kate,this could give fresh hope to the many people who have just came here to seek out a better life and have had their hopes trodden upon by McDowell and his band of elitests.
,ong,long way to go.

by downer Thu Aug 12, 2004 23:06

this is just some scraps for the dissenters from mc do well - one well publicised exception makes it look like middle of the night raids and a harsh asylum regime is actually a humane system that 'works' when a truly desrving case makes it into the media - the gardai will still be coming in the night for a majority of asylum seekers who we'll never have a name for

by iosaf Fri Aug 13, 2004 00:52

Her suffering has only been increased ( I imagine) by the publicity which seems to have been the only option in bringing compassion to a Minister who is now very well associated with inhumane policy making.

& the banner "rar" is very interesting. It looks like it would have a velvety texture. ¿Would I be right? does it have a velvety texture? Hmm, maybe it doesn't. But for a residents' banner to have that feeling, ought be on the minds of those inside No. 25.

I never tire of reminding anyone, that the Progressive Democrats are un-neccesary to the good government of Ireland. Their constituency is not essential. But I wouldn't like to see an Ireland without those velvety looking bits of curtain. Someone will know what I'm on about surely.

by Davy Carlin Fri Aug 13, 2004 09:43

Well done in this first step, and I would suggest to keep up and now ' increase' the pressure and profile of this case as well as the street protest - mobilisations.

Any info persons may feel relevant {press releases, additional info etc} can you also send to [email protected] as so we can put it into the Northern media and for circulation around our Network {Many of which have connections from around Ireland}.

Every one victory {however small} is inspiration to those struggling against many more injustices in this context, especially, presently, against Injustice minister Mc Doo.

PS will see RAR, FOC and AFA tomorrow in Derry. I think such discussion is important in which we can engage on 'differences' and similarites' etc. So if such organisations and groups wish to get a similar meeting together in Dublin etc I would be willing to speak. D

by Michael Gallagher - R.A.R. Fri Aug 13, 2004 13:51

The S.W.P. were the same place as five years ago when they abandoned RAR. There attempts to use RAR as a front were blocked and they walked away in the middle of a very serious case of deportation etc. Only for people like Rosanna, Andreas and some more, the case would not have been won.
SWP members take note, the same people are at the top of the SWP.

Rory Ahern spoke on behalf of the students union not the S.W.P. and some people were treated for shock because he didn't mention he was a member of that party in his speech.

The Socialist Party have been good supporters of RAR and a member comes to our meetings. Remember the S.P. stated that they don't believe the deportation referendum is racist! (See Ku Klux Klan).
The Green Party are supportive also.

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Fri Aug 13, 2004 14:09

Would it be a velvet revolution?

by The truth Fri Aug 13, 2004 14:13

"Remember the S.P. stated that they don't believe the deportation referendum is racist! "

That's not true. I think you will find if you asked an SP member they would say that the Referendum was racist. The argument was that the use of that term in the name of the organisation would be counter-productive.

"Rory Ahern spoke on behalf of the students union not the S.W.P. and some people were treated for shock because he didn't mention he was a member of that party in his speech."

Rory Hearne is the Deputy President of the USI. Thanks to the inititive of lefts at the USI Congress (including SP and SWP people) the USI took a position against the Referendum and against deportations. (no thanks for that from Michael)

I see that you are sympathising to the greens. The Greens did absolutley nothing on the referendum. At least the SP, SWP and (to an extent) the LP did something on it. Greens and SF did nothing. Michael get a grip!

by Belfast Fri Aug 13, 2004 14:34

Who is actively involved and actively supporting RAR and its essential work and what is this about the SWP walking away at a critical stage of a deportation case.

by LieSPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 14:43

The Greens and SF were active against the referendum. SF printed 100,000 leaflets calling for a no vote.

The SP were afraid to call the referendum racist in case it cost them votes.

by redjade Fri Aug 13, 2004 15:13

Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, "While I welcome the granting of a temporary injunction against Ms Bamidele's deportation what we really need is for the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, to rescind the order. It is an absolute disgrace that we as a nation should even contemplate returning this woman to Nigeria, where she faces the prospect of being stoned to death.

"I would also urge the Minister to reconsider and reverse his decision to push ahead his policy of mass deportations of asylum seekers which is neither compassionate, humanitarian or human rights based."

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Wed Aug 18, 2004 13:47

To verify the SP contend that in their view the referendum wasn't racist, you should refer to your comrades that agreed with the position taken by C.A.R.R. If you have any doubts yourself about the referendum being racist, I will scan and send you the article from the August issue of the Dubliner magazine. Or you can check the Ku Klux Klan website.
It would help if you identified yourself, just to throw some more transparency on your version of 'the truth'.

PS: I have a grip, that's why I left the SWP and the SP! Slainte.

Belfast
I can't disclose the identity of the person whose case it was. If you e-mail me at [email protected] - I will give you the facts of the case. Our website is almost ready, will keep you posted.

by Tanya Wed Aug 18, 2004 16:56

I am not quite clear on your point. Are you saying that the SP did not adequately campaign against the referendum? Are you criticising them?

I see you have left the SP. Did you encounter any of the pressure or harassment that Shane Kenna did? Would you agree with the criticisms that Dermot Connolly and Mary Muldowny have made about the SP?

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:38 mglibertypics at hotmail dot com

I am not going to get into a long drawn out 'debate' on why I left the SP or the SWP for that matter. For one reason - and it's from my experience on the merits of debate and time spent on this site - I won't answer someone that won't identify themselves. If you want to know what I think, I more than welcome your correspondence @ address above.
There are lots of people with lots of agendas on this site.

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:18 mglibertypics at hotmail dot com

If every individual person on the left that did anything of merit for just causes, was to be thanked for their efforts, it would take up most of the space on this site.
The fact that modest individuals are doing more practical work on the ground - and might I add without expecting or wanting any gold stars in return - and getting results, is an indictment of some of the left parties/groups that are only 'tinkering' with the issues.

I will remind you that on one demonstration organised by C.A.R.R., Socialist Youth did not get involved at all in the demo, even when we passed their stall at College Green.
So if want to 'put your hand out to be slapped' as the saying goes, it will be slapped.
Get a grip yourself!
Any correspondence would be welcome at the above address, over and out.

by Tanya Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:41

I think you are taking me up wrong but I also perhaps should not have asked general questions about the SP. I was just just confused by your comments about the referendum. FRom what you write about SY I take it that you dont think the SP adequately campaigned against the referendum.

by Gearoid O'Murchu - Private person Tue Aug 24, 2004 13:56 cgmurphy at gofree dot indigo dot ie 281, Howth Road, Dublin 5. 0872 761 675

The article about Kate Banidele in the Ireland On Sunday (22/08) showed us all how easy it is for you all to be duped. You really fell for her plot, 'hook, line + sinker'.

I lived in Nigeria for 10 years and I could have told you that her story did not stack up. Her name is not a Northern name and she could not speak Housa or Fulani.

Get a grip you guys. She has done more to ruin the plight of genuine asylum seekers that you imagine. I for one would be happy to pay for a one way ticket for her back to Nigeria.

Gearoid

by Mark Grehan - Residents Against Racism Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:04 residentsagainstracism at eircom dot net 12a Brunswick place, Dublin 2 087 7974622 or 087 6662060

Poor Gearoid such a big statement relying on Ireland on Sunday. You shouldn't rely on a CD with a free paper for your information. I wouldn't believe that their TV guide is accurate let alone a front page article. Regulars of this site would have already come to that conclusion after their mayday articles. First of all who is Kate Banidale, Kate Banidele doesn't exist. The women who RAR is campaigning for is Nimota Bamidele, Kate is what she is called to her friends. Ireland on Sunday's thorough investigation wasn't so thorough to get her name right. Oh dear sloppy journalism!. If you look at the eight page you will see the RAR protest outside the PD head office, you will then notice that Ireland on Sunday have doctored the photo changing our correct spelling of her surname to their incorrect spelling. The lesson to be learned from this is that Ireland on Sunday doctor their photo's to suit their articles. Oh dear bad journalism!. Once people had noticed those two errors they could easily have drawn the correct conclusion that the article is completely and utterly incorrect. Then they would question why Ireand on Sunday are printing a press release from the embassy of the alleged human rights abusers. The same embassy who denied that female circumcision was taking place. A statement from them is akin to a press release from Saddam Hussein two years ago saying there was no human rights abuse going on in Iraq! Oh dear idiotic journalism. Perhaps they would have been better off talking to Amnesty International who would have been able to tell them about Human rights abuse that the Nigerian government continues to inflict on its citizens including the jailing of political opponents and allowing the continued practice of FGM and other brutal practices including stoning. So Gearoid please buy that one way ticket to Nigeria, no one will miss you bye. As for everyone else, well they expect articles like this from an awful tabloid such as Ireland on Sunday, thats why no other newspaper ran with this rubbish. Gearoid how would you know what language Nimota could or could not speak, it wasn't in the Ireland on Sunday article and we never mentioned it. You have no idea what she can speak.

by NTR Wed Mar 09, 2005 20:05

Maybe Ireland on Sunday failed to get "Kates" name right, however, the Nigerian embassy cannot be accused of doing so.

Quote:

"Sir - The embassy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has noted with grave concern various media reports about statements from failed asylum seekers who, in their desperate bid to remain in Ireland, have resorted to all manner of outrageous allegations against their country of origin. Last August, Nimota Kate Bamidele claimed she was sentenced to death in August 2002 by a Sharia court in Nigeria. This story was investigated and found to be false. Unfortunately, she had done damage by presenting Nigeria as a barbaric and lawless society. "

etc.

by jack white - an ting Wed Mar 09, 2005 21:49

I don't think anyone would expect the embassy of any country to state that its not a secure place to live. Bearing this in mind it's no surprise that the Nigerian embassy states that asylum seekers " have resorted to all manner of outrageous allegations against their country of origin. "

by Mark Grehan Wed Mar 09, 2005 22:06

People should note the Nigerian embassy is renowned for it's corruption. It has previously denied that FGM takes place in Nigeria. It's what you would expect from an embassy representing a corrupt regime's such as Nigeria. For the last several days the embassy has been receiving bad press regarding the charging of over €400 for Nigerian passports. They have reportedly earned over €1 million euros so far from parents trying to get passports to apply for the residency scheme as the result of being the parent of an Irish child. Not only that, there was an alleged "break" in at the Nigerian embassy recently. If anybody has been down to the embassy they will have noted that the embassy is like a prison. It would be impossible to break into. This "break in" happened after a lengthy period during which many people applying for passports were issued with receipts for several hundred euros less than they had paid. Receipts were allegedly stolen during the "break in". Last thursday an ambulance had to be called as a child took seriously ill outside the embassy. The Nigerian embassy had refused to allow the child into the building, the childs mother was trying to get a passport. The embassy forces people to wait outside in the cold while "processing" requests. There have been several protests outside the embassy over the last week organised by Nigerians, who were protesting against the way the embassy had been treating them. Complaints have been made to McDowell and other ministers who have refused to get involved. The Nigerian embassy have been refusing to answer phone calls from journalists. No surprise there as Nigeria is renowned for the curtailing of the Press and trying to shut down opposition.

by Mister Man Thu Mar 10, 2005 14:51

.. while it's true Sharia Law is practiced in some areas in Nigeria, it is confined to certain Northern states.

Could she not return to Lagos or elsewhere in Nigeria and not be under the threat of stoning? Evidently, Sharia Law is an evil and despicable thing and while it would be prudent to prevent someone being deported to face death, why hasn't anybody pointed out that she WAS NOT being deported to the districts in which these barbaric practices are rife.

McDowell [much as I dislike him] was simply NOT sending her to her death.

Now, it's quite legitimate to campaign to prevent deportations. Also, there is a very real case for Political Asylum to be granted here but TELLING LIES and stating that she would face a death sentence in Nigeria surely damages the campaign's credibility, no?

by mr mister Thu Mar 10, 2005 15:02

Unfortunately too many people dont really care less about the facts of the case. They have an ideological point of view, and stick to it rigidly. Even if it means getting involved in a farce like this.

by Joe Thu Mar 10, 2005 15:13

Ah a return of the 'I'm not a racist but ..' crowd.

The problem of course is that as the embassy 'break in' again demonstrates the Nigerian state cannot be trusted to have its own citizens interests at the heart of its policy. The idea that we can be sure where or where not an asylum seeker might be sent by that government on there forced removal from Ireland is laughable.

I can only presume that those pretending we can be sure of this have an ideological agenda of their own. One that is a lot more than their constant calls on us to trust the word of this regimes and its minions off Leeson st.

by Mister Man Thu Mar 10, 2005 15:27

Okay, so if I raise misgivings, I'm a racist? How dare you make such an accusation? What do you base such a conclusion on? I understand the case. I merely questioned the wisdom of the hyperbole employed in the protest. Surely making the full facts of the case clear is more honest an approach to take and would indeed give the protestors a greater moral high ground from which to attack the Nigerian and Irish Governments' motivation and honour in such deportations?

I suspect Mr Mister is right. It's just yet another disguised campaign by the hard Left to sell their ideology. I was giving the protestors the benefit of the doubt but usually anyone who cries FASCIST and RACIST at any reasonable detraction at all proves to be the usual red suspects pimping their typical brand of Socialist Utopia. Can you lot not get it? How many TDs in the Dáil share your vision of Ireland as the Cuba of Europe?

by Joe Thu Mar 10, 2005 15:46

"Okay, so if I raise misgivings, I'm a racist? .. I suspect Mr Mister is right."

Jesus wept you guys are awful.

1, If your going to pretend to be a second poster choose a name that is more different the second time around.
2. Don't forget mid way through your post that in this post you are not pretending to be someone else.

But for all those watching a good illustration of just how dim and easy to spot these 'I'm not a racist but ...' fools are to spot.

by Mister Man Thu Mar 10, 2005 15:53

er
1. I only posted as Mister Man [not Mister Mister] and
2. you've proved my point I think - your accusations of racism don't stand up. You haven't said why I'm racist nor refuted the small point I raised

For the record I AGREE she should not have been deported. There is a very good case for Political Asylum here. Returning her to a country in which there is at least the threat of violence towards her [no matter in what PART of the country] is more than enough to warrant having her remain in Ireland. The point I was making was the lack of honesty in the way the case is portrayed by protestors, that's all.

FOr my trouble I get called a racist? Idiot!

by Truly Blue Thu Mar 10, 2005 16:25

When people are deported to Nigeria they are handed over to the Nigerian authorities who put them in prison. The idea that you can be deported to another part of the country where you will be safe is a complete lie. Nigeria is not a safe country. The jailing of political opponents countinue along with the curtailing of the press.

by Mister Man Thu Mar 10, 2005 16:34

"When people are deported to Nigeria they are handed over to the Nigerian authorities who put them in prison. The idea that you can be deported to another part of the country where you will be safe is a complete lie. Nigeria is not a safe country. The jailing of political opponents countinue along with the curtailing of the press."

Now you see, this is what I mean. I know what you're trying to say here. There's pretty shoddy treatment by corrupt government officials, I'm sure.

But to claim that ALL people deported to Nigeria are jailed is surely wrong. What's your source for this?

Again, I understand your point. Nigeria is no place for someone to be unless they're part of the clique in government but that's a far cry from the claim made. Hyperbole, even in the name of a good cause, just ends up weakening your case.

by Truly Blue Thu Mar 10, 2005 17:08

Our sources come from Nigerians who were deported, churches in Nigeria, and members of NGO's in Nigeria. Once jailed they usually get released once somebody has bribed the authorities there. Such a pleasant place!

by NTR Thu Mar 10, 2005 21:34

Though I think there is a lot of tangential comment here, I would like to offer the following observations.

Unlike Nigerian "asylum seekers", the staff of the Nigerian embassy are legally in this jurisdiction and entitled to conduct their affairs as they see fit within the confines of the law. It is revealing that charges of Nigerian corruption and fraud are liberally levelled by "anti-racists" in this scenario and no other.

Deportations that involve jailing normally follow - well - deportations. Hardly surprising when you consider that deportations must be arranged with Nigerian officials who are perfectly entitled to vet those who have to be forcefully removed from another jurisdiction on planes loaded with Gardai and ancillary staff.

It seems to be conveniently forgetten that all failed "asylum seekers" are offered voluntary repatriation first and foremost.

Someone points out "Nigerian state cannot be trusted to have its own citizens interests at the heart of its policy". Not sure I agree. The point that the Nigerian embassy has been making is that spurious and vexatious claims are damaging the credibility of that country. Genuine readers of Nigerian media will know that the present government has identified corruption and fraud as impediments to inward investment to Nigeria. They are making concerted attempts to tackle this and are extremely anxious that ex-pats do not damage their country (and inter alia - their Citizens) from abroad hence the forthright letters to the Irish Independent and the Irish Times. This might also explain the sudden decrease in publicised cases of failed "asylum seekers" on unsustainable and unverifiable grounds.

I digress.

I would like to make an open challenge to Mr. Mark Grehan.

On the assumption that Mr. Grehan - armed with intimate knowledge of this case - still believes that Nimota Kate Bamidele will be stoned if returned to Nigeria, may I request the following:

Publication of the decision of the UNHCR on Ms. Bamidele's initial case for asylum and the reasons it was rejected.
Publication of the decision of the appeals tribunal.
Publication of the decision of the court action that failed to overturn her deportation order.
Publication of the findings furnished by the Nigerian embassy.
Publication of any material from the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights watch etc etc that specifically upholds Ms. Bamidele's claim.

If there is a shred of credibility in her claim, or your obstinate belief in it, you will make public all related material on this case and point out where the process has failed. If there is a genuine failing, neccessary action must be taken to prevent further such mistakes.

Surely your website would be an ideal place, if not here, to get the facts straight first and foremost and dispense with mere opinion.

I am ready and waiting to be convinced.

by Non Racist Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:45

I was wondering how long it would be before Tony came back to the site. Now calling yourself NTR does not disguise you. People will realise that its just the same old racist Tony.

by Mark Grehan Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:27

First of all the case is being taken to Europe and we will not be publishing anything unless we get permission from the solicitors. Secondly Nigeria is renowned for their corruption. It is an oil rich country and as a result has no problem getting inward investment. Investors have no interest in human rights when deciding where to invest, just take a look at China. Your sheer ignorance of the reality of life in Nigeria is startling. The reason that you are so willing to believe the Nigerian authorities is that it fits in with your desire to get rid of all Africans from Ireland. You can ignore everyone else as you so desire, the reality is that racism has completely blinded you.

by NTR Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:19

Rather unsurprisingly Mark, you have declined to take my challenge.

If, as you say, this case is "going to Europe" and you need solicitors to govern your actions, then what was the point of your demonstration?

Did you get legal advice for that too?

Little groups such as yours were at the forefront of a campaign some time ago to have the reasons for rejected asylum claims elucidated.

Now you have your wish, you wish to bury those reasons (with your head) in the sand.

Since when were published reasons for rejected asylum and court claims sub judice? I challenge you once again to publish the relevant decisions.

I challenge you to name the solicitor that has told you that any of these decisions cannot be published for legal reasons.

I don't believe for one second that this case is "going to Europe" as Ms Bamidele is still subject to a deportation order.

I do suspect that your belief in the validity of her story has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts. Furthermore, based on your contradictory and clumsy pretence at legal advice, I now suspect that you are not even aware of the relevant decisions made, preferring to dabble in conspiracy theory and babbling about anything but the proferred case presented by Ms Bamidele.



Which, in case you have forgotten, was one of facing death by stoning. No more. No less. And this is where my contribution is staying.



I enjoy a good debate. Please accept my apologies if I decline to consider posts that are off topic, childish, abusive or clearly, inexplicably multi-posted from the same author under assumed names.

by Mark Grehan Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:52

The protest was to pressure McDowell to tear up the deportation order. McDowell has the power to do that as the decision solely rests with him. Your ignorance of EU law is startling i suggest a quick visit to the library for you. Just because Nimota has a deportation order does not mean the case can not be taken to Europe. It is startling that you think so. I find it amusing that you rely on your evidence from Ireland on Sunday who used the wrong name and doctored the photos of the protest to suit their story. The head of the NUJ recently stated that Ireland on Sunday's stories have more fictional byline than fact. Regular users of this site are well aware of Ireland on Sunday and their "facts". We have seen Nimota's papers, you haven't. I am also amazed that you think that the Department of Justice rejected her application on the basis that they didn't believe her claims. The dept. of Justice regularly deport people saying that they could just live in another part of the country from where they came from. And as for not believing that the case is being taken to Europe, tough. Also we have had several cases in the papers recently, you are just not paying attention. We have never published the name of a solicitor working on one of our cases, nor will we start. Our helpline continues to get racist phonecalls we will not do anything to encourage similar phonecalls to our solicitors.

You can ignore the facts about Nigerian corruption all you want. The reality is different. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. And also i don't post under an assumed name on this website. I have spoken out against it several times before. You on the other hand do.

by Mark Grehan Fri Mar 11, 2005 13:28

Since you seem to think that it is only anti racists who attack Nigeria for human rights abuses:

"Members of the security forces committed numerous human rights abuses".
"The Government's human rights record remained poor, and the Government continued to commit serious abuses. Nationwide local government elections held during the year were not generally judged free and fair and therefore abridged citizens' right to change their government. Security forces committed extrajudicial killings and used excessive force. There were several politically motivated killings by unknown persons during the year. Security forces regularly beat protesters, criminal suspects, detainees, and convicted prisoners"

Was this from anti racists? No US department of state report for 2004. Interestingly enough Ireland was also attacked in the report.

Your views are blined by your racism and hatred for anti racist groups. The reality is much different.

by NTR Fri Mar 11, 2005 19:25

My dear Mark, I have no intention of personalising this debate.

I am genuinely interested in the nuts and bolts of this specific case, as I have indicated.

So I don't apologise for staying on topic.

I would again ask you to publish the relevant documentation that sustains any part of Ms. Bamidele's claim that she will be stoned to death. Is that really too much to ask? Would you not be persuaded to do so in her interest at least? Is there some reason why you are rigidly refusing to do so?

The definition of sub judice is roughly - Under judicial deliberation; before a judge or court of law.

As I have already stated - The reasons her claim was rejected are no longer sub judice nor is the appeal decision, nor the decision of the court to reject her application to have her deportation quashed - by definition.

If you read the papers, you will see thousands of court cases and their outcomes freely discussed.

Yet, you claim legal advice that tells you to suppress that which is freely available.

So far as I know, the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc. have not repressed relevant information related to Ms. Bamidele's claim.

Perhaps you dispute this?

If there is such a rock-solid case then why the reluctance to publicise the specific failings of any of the systems to detect it?.

You mention going to Europe. I will reserve comment. Perhaps you will let me know, which court and on what grounds?

I would like a debate that is reasoned and respectful.

I would request that you reciprocate and adjust the tone of your responses accordingly.

by Mark Grehan Fri Mar 11, 2005 19:45

Once again i am not publishing the files on this website. However if you want to discuss Nimota's case then you can come down to the Teachers club in Dublin tonight to the RAR meeting. If you can't make it tonight then any friday will do. I will discuss this case no more with an anonymous poster. Anybody interested in the case is more than welcome to any RAR meeting to discuss it on Fridays at 7 o'clock in the teachers club.

Furthermore NTR you have refused to acknowledge the evidence that Nigeria is a corrupt regime. Are you ignoring this because it doesn't suit your arguments? Will you agree that Nigeria is corrupt?

by NTR Fri Mar 11, 2005 20:13

Mark, Again, I don't apologise for staying on topic although if you can point to a country free of corruption, I just might take that bait.

If you wish to publicise this individuals case and concurrently obscure the factual details, in your possession, then you fatally sacrifice your credibility and integrity.

I have no interest in attending your groups events as you have given me no reason to expect that there would be an open and honest environment where such cases are considered objectively.

I may be an anonymous poster but this is a public forum with no requirement for me to be otherwise. If you wish to stage manage responses to stage managed questions and preach to the converted, you would be ill advised to further publish here.

by Mark Grehan Sat Mar 12, 2005 13:48

Once again. Anyone can come along to a meeting to discuss this case. Our meetings are open and many users of this site have been to one of our meetings and know that they aren't "stage managed". You expect me to scan in dozens and dozens of pages and post them on this site against the solicitors wishes because an anonymous poster wishes it. You clearly don't have the courage and conviction in your beliefs to post your real name. Your lack of knowledge of the legal system and indeed the process of asylum applications is startling. I suggest you thoroughly research it on the net. Again anyone can come to any of our meetings to discuss any cases they wish. Many people have done so. I suggest you do so to NTR.

by NTR Sat Mar 12, 2005 17:36

Hmmm. I think you missed my point on stage managing.

I refer to posting to this site with selective information only and a highly combative response to efforts to elucidate the facts - so people can decide on the merits of the case, and not rely on what otherwise appears to be the dismissal of yet another manufactured claim.

I do expect you to scan in dozens and dozens of pages to justify this claim as those dozens and dozens of pages, the authors and the subsistence of the claimant, were paid for by taxpayers money that could otherwise be spent on Irish people or God forbid, genuine refugees.

If it remains your stance that this money has been squandered and a bad decision made, I want to know.

It is pointless trying to justify a miscarraige of justice without the basic facts.

I think the price paid hitting the scanner would be more than repaid if you saved Ms. Bamidele's life, no?

As I have already pointed out, I believe failure to do so fatally undermines your groups credibility and ultimately Ms. Bamidele.

I also believe that your claim of legal advice to suppress freely available information is the stuff of dreams.

I will again decline your offer to hook up with RAR, kind as it is, but if you wish to simply plug the meetings, you can always invite me again.

I will finish with one simple question. Is it your honest and true belief, after reading all the documentation and all the deliberations, that Ms. Bamidele gave a completely full and honest account of herself, her origins and her circumstances, that she fully complied with the asylum procedure and told the truth at all times, with no contradictions and that she will, without a shadow of doubt, be stoned to death if she is returned to Nigeria?

Think very carefully about your answer.

by Mark Grehan Sat Mar 12, 2005 20:51

Yet again i have to respond to you. If you honestly believe that the papers are freely available go get them yourself. Once again i will reiterate that your knowledge of the asylum procedure is completely flawed. Yet again i will state that you should use the internet and local library to educate yourself. Once again i will state that you have no convictions in your beliefs to post your real name. Once again i will say we will listen to the solicitors wishes rather than an anonymous poster. Once again i will invite you down to an RAR meeting. Your refusal to come is astonishing since you claim to be so interested in this case. You have never been to a meeting ( many readers of this site have) we are more than willing to discuss individual cases. We are quite an open group as readers of this site know. You should educate yourself before trying to pass yourself of as knowledgable on asylum issues. I will say again, we are an open group anyone is welcome to our meetings my name is always posted with my messages on this site, i have nothing to hide. So stop hiding behind false names and ill informed views, come out into the open. Otherwise don't waste peoples time.

by R. Isible Sat Mar 12, 2005 21:32

QUOTE: As I have already pointed out, I believe failure to do so fatally undermines your groups credibility and ultimately Ms. Bamidele.

Not to a disinterested observer it doesn't. If you have access to some information that shows that Bamidele or her supporters are misrepresenting the facts then you should publish it. You've completely failed to provide any evidence to back up your claims and instead fall back on the weighty claim that you believe something or other that you won't state clearly. Now, if you turned out to be a government employee involved in the review of this case then your opinion might be interesting and carry some weight, but an anonymous "belief"?!

QUOTE: I also believe that your claim of legal advice to suppress freely available information is the stuff of dreams.

It seems highly plausible to me and it's backed up by the fact that Mark and RAR are publically claiming this attached to their names: their credibility is on the line unlike yours and so it carries a lot more weight and plausibility.

by NTR Sun Mar 13, 2005 02:08

Risable,

Just like you, I am posting under an assumed name. Like you, my credibility is not at stake that's true. However,I did not start this thread nor support it's content nor am I looking for credibility, media coverage, political or public support.

I am simply trying to understand the underlying principle of this protest.

My research tells me, a women sentenced to death by stoning is buried up to her neck. Then stones are thrown at her until she is dead. The size of the stones must not be too small, so that they have an immediate lethal effect, yet they must not be too large, so that death does not occur immediately.

I do not advocate the pulping of this womans head by stones for Gods sakes and that this is prevented is infinitely more important that Grehan's credibility.

I do believe, an individual genuinely subjected to this fate, should be accorded appropriate protection and would satisfy the provisions of the 1951 Convention on Refugees with ease.

I'd like to think we are all agreed on this much at least.

However the facts remain. Despite going through the asylum system and appeals, the humanitarian appeals system and indeed, the Four Courts, this woman has still not satisfied the appropriate people (who are experts in their fields) that there is sufficient grounds to necessitate the conventions explicit raison d'etre for protection.

So I find myself struggling to get a simple answer to the obvious question that goes to the core of the issue from those who are protesting a gross miscarraige of justice (whilst simultaneously claiming an intimate knowledge of the case):

What the hell has gone wrong?


Marks reluctance to answer this straighforward question is extraordinary. I have long gone beyond thinking that he does not understand the question.

I will try compromise.

I will set aside my request for specific information, for now, but the following question applies:

Mark,

Is it your honest and true belief, after reading all the relevant documentation associated with this case and all the deliberations, that Ms. Bamidele gave a completely full and honest account of herself, her origins and her circumstances, and that she fully complied with the asylum procedures and told the truth at all times, with no contradictions, and that she will, without a shadow of doubt, be stoned to death (in the grotesque manner described above) if she is returned to Nigeria?

The answer remains yes or no.

by Mark Grehan Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:10

Yes i do. However once again your knowledge of the system is completely flawed. You do not understand the procedure or what a judicial review is. I have stated before that you are foolishly thinking that her application was turned down because she wasn't believed. I went on to explain to you that the Department regularly deports people saying that they could just live in a different part of the country from where they came. Not just that i don't believe that you understand what a judicial review is. You believe that amnesty and human rights watch were contacted on this case, which they weren't. You seem to believe that the papers are freely available which they aren't. You seem to only be relying for your evidence from Ireland on Sunday and the Nigerian embassy. Now since you have questioned my integrity and RAR's also I want you to answer question's. Are you Tony posting under another name, and how can you question anybody's integrity? And if so why did you hide your identity? Remember NTR your integrity is at stake now.

by AE Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:54

Will Labour put an end to deportations if they are part of the next government?

Will Labour introduce laws to make all born in Ireland and all asylum seekers citizens if part of the next government?

Or will these people be the price of a grubby coalition deal with Fine Gael?

by NTR Mon Mar 14, 2005 19:27

Mark, I just want to be 100% clear on your understanding of this specific case.

Having now accepted and going on the record that the following statement is true:

(Is it your belief now that after reading all the relevant documentation associated with this case and all the deliberations, that Ms. Bamidele gave a completely full and honest account of herself, her origins and her circumstances, and that she fully complied with the asylum procedures and told the truth at all times, with no contradictions, and that she will, without a shadow of doubt, be stoned to death if returned to Nigeria?)

Is now also your contention that her claim was rejected because the asylum adjudicators, acting under UNHCR (not department incidentally) guidelines, although completly accepting the validity of the claim and the integrity of Ms Bamidele, decided she fell into the category of internally displaced person, and therefore, should have her claim rejected?

And is it your further assertion that the letters to the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, by the Nigerian embassy - are part of some inexplicable effort to have this person returned, with no guarantees of protection, stoned to death and completely destroy diplomatic relations, International inward investment, not to mention foreign aid, or can you provide some other inspired reason for this particular action?

I do understand judical reviews incidentally which makes Ms. Bamideles refusal to legally challenge the decision of the asylum adjudication as opposed to the deportation order, even more strange, as the Judge who rejected her challenge to deportation, pointed out.

For more on me and my identity, please refer to the link. I would thank you for not repeating yourself interminably.

On topic, with dignity, courtesy and strictly to the points, only, please.

by Peter Cosgrave - none Mon Mar 14, 2005 22:06

Just a quick point but you clearly have no integrity NTR.
You hide behind an assumed name and have refused to come forward with your identity. Why is that?
Why didn't you say if you are Tony are not?
If so why did you stop using the name Tony? Where is your evidence that this woman was lying?
I also believe that UNHCR does not look at each indivdual case. What they do is look to see if the region where people are being deported to is "safe". It falls to the minister of justice to sign each individual deportation order. Also i'd be pretty confident that it would have been the woman's solicitor rather than her who would have decided what legal avenue to take. However i am not looking for a response from you. Since you don't seem to be able to come clean about who you are, what you stand for, or indeed if you are from any groups, i most certainly wouldn't believe you would come clean about anything else.

by NTR Mon Mar 14, 2005 22:41

Peter,

Thank you for the kind comments.

I am going to make my one and only exception to the question - for you.

The reasons I use NTR are:

(1) The abusive comments don't tend to flow as easy when a specific name is used.
(2) I don't have to worry about people threatening me or my family in the manner I have seen here before.
(3) If i were to post my real name, others might simply claim that was false too.

My interest in this case is explained in the link contained in my last post and your "belief" on the adjudication of this asylum claim is completely irrelevant.

Mark Grehan, is asserting that the decision was flawed.

He claims intimate knowledge of the case and I am interested in establishing where the flaw lies.

Mark claims the applicant was completely genuine, so now we move to the only remaining variable, the adjudicators and the manner in which they determined the claim.

Nothing to get upset about.

Scienta est potentia.

by NTR Thu Mar 17, 2005 01:23

You will be flattered!

Happened across a copy of the dismal tabloid rag, the mirror today and guess what!

Why Pat Flanagan has an article with your exact photo (above) of Rosanna in it!

Proving he does not just lift the text and philosophy of RAR from here!

Don't forget to thank him:

[email protected]