10 Million Bengali Women to Get OzÂ ‘Asylum?’Â Â (Ross Rightangle)
This latest judicial idiocy entitles a billion Muslim women to demand asylum in Australia
- The report quotes an “impartial” professor as sayingÂ “Bangladesh is predominantly Muslim and a very heavily patriarchal society. If you’re on the wrong side of the political tracks and you’re a woman, you’re stuffed . . . the only option for these women is to get out.”
So if the latest insane ruling from the Refugee Review Tribunal, which admits it suspects the woman concernedÂ “fabricated”at least part of her “evidence,” is treated as precedent, then millions of those ‘stuffed’ females have every right to expect similar brainless acquiescence from future tribunals. (Read more)
Suspicion of lies but asylum granted
A Bangladeshi woman with a violent husband has won asylum in Australia, despite a tribunal’s suspicion that she “fabricated” evidence.
The Refugee Review Tribunal ruled the woman had a “well-founded fear of persecution” in Bangladesh because she was female and vulnerable to domestic violence.
It raised concerns that the woman could have “fabricated” the asylum claim with her husband’s help. Yet it overruled the Immigration Department’s decision to deny refugee status to the woman and her son, who flew to Australia as tourists.
In a newly published judgment, tribunal member Rowena Irish refers to the “endemic nature of domestic violence against women in Bangladesh generally” and concludes that “the absence of gender equality” is a reason to grant asylum under the Refugee Convention.
“The tribunal accepts that women are discriminated against and viewed as inferior in Bangladesh,” her judgment states.
Women are discriminated against and viewed as inferior under Islam, not only in Bangladesh. If ignorant leftist judges in Australia allow themselves to be hoodwinked in this fashion, the doors are open for a billion more.
“Women are not treated equally in family law matters or where a woman alleges sexual assault. There are great social pressures on a woman to remain with her husband even though she may be the victim of domestic or sexual violence.”
The woman and her son, whose names and ages were not published, arrived on tourist visas in December 2012 before claiming asylum weeks later.
The Immigration Department rejected their refugee claim, sparking an appeal. The woman told the tribunal she had confronted her husband when she “discovered photos of him with other girls” on his phone. He hit her, so she left him to live with her parents before flying to Australia six weeks later.
A diary showed she had been “unable to obtain protection from the authorities despite going to them”.
The tribunal found aspects of her claim to be “unpersuasive” and expressed doubt she had stumbled across passports with visas to visit Australia.
“The tribunal finds it surprising that the applicant would have found her and her son’s passport in a drawer at home, have looked through them and found a visa to Australia which she did not know her husband had applied for,” the judgment states.
“The timing of the visitor visa application raises concerns for the tribunal that the trip was planned by the applicant and her husband together and the claims were fabricated and prepared in collaboration with her husband while in Bangladesh. However, although surprisingly coincidental, the tribunal accepts that it is possible the applicant could have discovered the visas in the passport and taken advantage of this because of the . . . abuse from her husband.”
The tribunal also questioned the authenticity of a translated letter from the husband’s lawyer, admitting the husband had beaten his wife. It concluded there was a “real chance” her husband would harm her if she returned to Bangladesh.
“The tribunal is satisfied that the authorities in Bangladesh would not be willing or able to protect (her) from the harm she fears from (her) husband.”
The Bangladesh high commission did not respond to questions yesterday about the safety of women in Bangladesh.
Sydney University professor of public law Mary Crock said a Pakistani woman had won asylum on domestic violence grounds in a High Court ruling in 2002, but cases were rare.
“The women have to show this is not just a domestic matter but a systemic failure by the state to protect them,” she said. “Bangladesh is predominantly Muslim and a very heavily patriarchal society. If you’re on the wrong side of the political tracks and you’re a woman, you’re stuffed . . . the only option for these women is to get out.”