24 Sep 2009, Comments (7)

If they were super athletes, they’d be in

Author: Helen

There is absolutely no reason why Grace Gichuhi and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi shouldn’t be offered asylum in Australia under the provisions of existing international treaties: ”race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”.

So, Immigration spokespeople and Senator Evans and Refugee tribunal, you think being a female member of a social subgroup which practices forced genital mutilation on women doesn’t constitute being a member of a particular social group?

There’s legislation set to go through Parliament to offer “complementary protection” to cover such cases, if their supporters can keep them here until then. Senator Evans, though, also has a measure of discretionary power and could have approved their application already. For reasons which I can only guess at, in this case, “can’t” means “won’t”.


(Contact Senator Chris Evans)

Comments (7)

  • Deborah says:

    I think you’re being too polite about our Minister of Immigration. His inability to recognise the evil that is being done to these women, because they are women, appalls me.

    There’s a line in the second verse of the Australian national anthem: For those who come across the sea, we’ve boundless plains to share, or something like that. Unless you are poor, black, and female, it seems. (Or poor and black or brown or non-white of any description.)

    Fucking fuckers, I say.

  • Dave Bath says:

    Dear Minister,

    Enclosed is an electric pencil sharpener. It’s an old one I’ve dug from the back of the garage, so the cutting edges are a bit rusty. Stick your dick in it, turn it on. Without anaesthetic. Oh? The very idea is traumatic and offensive, let alone the actuality?

    At least Haneef got out in one piece.

    Unkind regards,
    N.E. Bodywithheartorbrain

  • Helen says:


  • armagny says:

    I would have thought, even being legalistic, that if this ‘tradition’ is a fixed part of membership of a certain social group or religion (or a sub strand of such) that they, by saying ‘we don’t want to be mutilated and therefore reject your beliefs’, become people being victimised for their membership of a social group or religion.

    Anyway, not to let legal wankery get in the way, there are plenty of discretionary powers with which they can be kept here.

  • Dave Bath says:

    Helen. The “ouchiness” of my prev comment would probably give the Minister an idea of what, for these women, he can either condemn them to, or save them from. He probably thinks “circumcision is a doddle”. (Mind you, I think male circumcision should be classified as an “intimate piercing”, where even a parent cannot authorize it for a minor without a good reason supported by doctors.)

    Have you got a more accurate analogous treatment to give the minister a better idea? (And I forgot to mention, no antiseptic or analgesic afterwards)

  • kath lockett says:

    Complementary protection sounds about as useful as the procedure those poor women are trying to escape. Much like Guantanamo Bay equates to Holiday Resort.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.