The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in a case concerning two young Iraqi women. Irish Legal News explains, “Two young Iraqi women can claim asylum in the Netherlands on the basis that they have become “westernised” during their stay in the country and could be persecuted if forced to return to Iraq.”
As the details are important, I shall quote at length. “The two women are sisters of Iraqi nationality who were born in 2003 and 2005 respectively and arrived in the Netherlands in 2015 with their parents and their aunt. Asylum applications submitted by the family in 2015 were rejected in 2017 and their final appeal failed in 2018.
The young women submitted new asylum applications in 2019, arguing that their long stay (it was four years) in the Netherlands since 2015 had led them to adopt the norms, values and conduct of young people of their age in Dutch society. (My emphasis.)
They claimed that, if they return to Iraq, they would be unable to conform to the norms of a society which does not afford women and girls the same rights as men and that they fear being exposed to a risk of persecution due to the identity which they have formed in the Netherlands. (My emphasis)
Those subsequent applications were also rejected by the Dutch authorities.
The women subsequently brought proceedings before the Dutch courts, which referred a question to the CJEU on the interpretation of Directive 2011/95 on international protection, which lays down the conditions for granting refugee status to third-country nationals.
The Directive sets out that refugee status should be granted in cases where a third-country national is persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.
In its judgment, the CJEU held that women, including minors, who share as a common characteristic the fact that they genuinely come to identify with the fundamental value of equality between women and men during their stay in a member state may, depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, be regarded as belonging to a “particular social group”.
It clarifies that, where an applicant for international protection is a minor, the national authorities must consider their best interests of the child. It was held that a long stay in a member state may be taken into account, especially where it coincides with a period during which an applicant who is a minor has formed their identity.
The case now returns to the Dutch court.”
What an interesting case indeed.
In other words, the ECJ has held that female refugees who embrace gender equality may qualify for asylum as they could be subject to persecution in their home countries, as being a member of a particular social group. This is especially the case if that group embraces gender equality, and gender equality is not a fundamental principle of the home country.
This is a real zinger of a case. I hope the Dutch Iraqi teenagers get to stay in the Netherlands, although they should be aware that the ‘far-right’ is now stalking its way through Europe including the Netherlands.
I find it fascinating that these two girls would rather stay in the Netherlands that is in the grip of far-right extremism given the electoral success of Geert Wilders then head back to the homeland of Iraq. Perhaps it is a case of better the devil you know.
I also find it intriguing that after just four years in the West, the ECJ has held that it is possible that these girls could be persecuted for their beliefs in gender equality should they be sent back to Iraq.
This is because the cultural norms in Iraq – and indeed most of the Middle East – are fundamentally incompatible with the cultural norms of those in the West, especially the hippy-dippy Dutch. That is the real point of this case. That’s the take-home point.
Middle Eastern cultural norms are dangerous to Western Women, according to ECJ. That is essentially what they said, just in nice legalese. Must not sound ‘far-right.’
Now, if a Western woman was to say cultural norms of the middle east are not compatible with their values they’d be slammed as a fascist or a right-wing nut-job. So it is left to two Iraqi teenagers to point out the blindingly obvious – namely it is better to a woman in the West than it is in the Middle East.
It must follow then as surely night follows day, that Western women can and should bring a case against any Western governments for breaching their human rights under the Convention for operating an open-door policy on immigration and admitting hundreds of thousands of men from cultures that the ECJ has now ruled are fundamentally incompatible with gender equality and Western norms.
The clash is so great, the risk so obvious indeed that two Iraqi teenagers are claiming it will be too dangerous for them to return to Iraq, after just four years. It would be an awful shame then if the Dutch government just imported that same anti-Western anti-gender equality culture into the Netherlands, in the form of hundreds of thousands of military age men from the Middle East.
When Irish women complain that mass immigration from cultures that harbour deeply misogynist tendencies put their safety, well-being, and bodily integrity at risk, the government likes to get out their ‘hate speech’ card or anti-terrorism law to shut them down. But if two Iraqi teenagers, rightly claim they cannot be expected to return to Iraq after spending their formative years in Holland, the ECJ agrees.
Both the ECJ and the “far-right” are correct – cultural differences matter. It is wrong legally and morally to ship back two Westernised teenage girls to Iraq. And it is equally wrong, immoral and treasonous, for Western governments – including the Irish government – to be importing misogynistic cultural norms that dominate the Middle East into Ireland and expect Irish women to just put up with it.