Concern grows in Britain over female genital mutilation

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Concern grows in Britain over female genital mutilation

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/britain.female.circumcision.ap/index.html
LONDON, England (AP) -- Female genital mutilation, commonly associated with parts of Africa and the Middle East, is becoming a growing problem in Britain despite authorities' efforts to stamp it out.
Somali-born supermodel Waris Dirie survived a traditional form of the practice that kills hundreds of girls each year.
The Metropolitan Police, Britain's largest police force, hopes a campaign beginning Wednesday will highlight that the practice is a crime here.
To make their point, police are offering a 20,000-pound (euro29,500; US$40,000) reward for information leading to Britain's first prosecution for female genital mutilation, Detective Chief Superintendent Alastair Jeffrey said.
In Britain, the problem mostly involves first-generation immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.
Police say they do not have comprehensive statistics about the number of victims. But midwife Comfort Momoh, who specializes in treating them at London hospitals and clinics and who works with police, told the news conference she treats 400-500 victims every year.
Arranging or carrying out the procedure -- in Britain or abroad -- is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison, but no one has been prosecuted since it was banned under British law in 2003, Jeffrey said. Police estimate up to 66,000 girls in Britain face the risk of genital mutilation. Video Watch why the practice is difficult to fight (VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED) »
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/britain.female.circumcision.ap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
"The timing of this campaign is for one good reason: so we can get in before the summer holidays, a time when young girls are taken abroad and subjected to genital mutilation," he told a news conference on Tuesday.
Mutilated infants, girls and women face irreversible lifelong health risks -- both physically and mentally, according to UNICEF and other charity groups.
Authorities believe the number of genital mutilation cases peaks in the summer, because the extended holiday gives girls more time to recover -- thereby making it easier for those responsible to cover up their actions.
Female genital mutilation usually involves the removal of the clitoris and other parts of female genitalia. Those who practice it say it tames a girl's sexual desire and maintains her honor.
It is practiced by Muslims and Christians alike, deeply rooted in the Nile Valley region and parts of sub-Saharan African, and is also done in Yemen and Oman. Through migration, the practice has spread to Western countries like Britain.
Between 100 million and 140 million women are believed to have been subjected to the practice in Africa and an additional 3 million girls face the threat of female genital mutilation every year, according to UNICEF.
Another "horror story" that needs discussion. This is the third of stories related to Muslim troubles and while I'm not anti-muslim I am troubled by their practices and radical beliefs. Thankfully however I know from personal experience that these radicals are very few and far between and only represent a small (but none-the-less dangerous) portion of the world wide Muslim population.
I wonder how often this is carried out here in the states with 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants wanting to practice their beliefs? One of the problems in policing this is the right to privacy and the families forbidding the victim of the mutilation to speak about it.
One must praise the British Police for cracking down on this horror. What's being done about it here in the U.S. where anti-American protests by devout Muslims are being carried out?
While freedom of religion is a right in this country, where do we draw the line at how people should practice their religion? Touchy subject. But mainly how can we protect these young girls from experiencing the pain and terror their mothers and grandmothers and so on went through? I've been advocating that parents are ultimately responsible for the welfare and safety of their children and yet when the parent is harming their child that becomes a whole new ball game and the rights of the child to grow up without fear and oppression of who they are as people becomes a need paramount over the rights of the parents.
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
It's not actually a "muslim" problem. FGM is a cultural artifact from primarily North African descent, and is not a part of Islam per se. For instance, Saudi Arabia, as oppressive as it is towards women in the name of Islam, does not have a big problem with FGM, while Egypt, which is more lax towards women, does. That should make the case easier for outlawing the procedure IMO since it isn't really a religious issue.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
That is awful! Just awful!
icon9.gif
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
183
Location
Olathe, KS
Perhaps the British could take inspiration from their own General Napier, who, when Hindus protested the prohibition of Sati, is said to have responded:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
I have never heard that quote before, Cory, altho' General Napier is known to me, of course.

I think that says it all rather well actually.

To wander off the point slightly, we seem to have a habit of occaisionally producing miltary men of uncommon good sense. General Rose is one of my favourites from recent times, not so much for his poor judgement in his personal life but for his good judgement in the civil war in the Balkan's.
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
It's not actually a "muslim" problem. FGM is a cultural artifact from primarily North African descent, and is not a part of Islam per se. For instance, Saudi Arabia, as oppressive as it is towards women in the name of Islam, does not have a big problem with FGM, while Egypt, which is more lax towards women, does. That should make the case easier for outlawing the procedure IMO since it isn't really a religious issue.

Empty Hands is correct - it's more regional than religious - more that some Muslims living in that area may practice FGM, it's because it's a cultural practice rather than a religious practice, although some religions in North Africa and the Middle East include the practice in their beliefs - often because FGM was a cultural tradition subsumed into religious practice. For a more complete description of the range of FGM (there are 3 distinct practices) look here.
 

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
The worst part about this practice to me besides the mutilation itself is the total disregard for the girl the people who do it seem to have. When a boy is circumcized it happens usually a few days after birth, nothing he's ever likely to remember, but FGM happens in the middle of childhood, something that can probably never be forgotten and with such a disregard for the health of the girl. I don't know that the practice will ever disappear as much as we may want it too, some people always seem to want to hold onto the old ways or feel that because it was done to me it should be done to you, but I am glad to see an effort being made to crack down on it so that it doesn't become pervasive in a new society....
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
Boys now are circumcised shortly after birth - but in many societies, male circumcision is - or was - performed at puberty.
 

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
Boys now are circumcised shortly after birth - but in many societies, male circumcision is - or was - performed at puberty.

But unlike male circumcision which has grown with the times to some extent, the same can not be said for FGM
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
Boys now are circumcised shortly after birth - but in many societies, male circumcision is - or was - performed at puberty.

Regardless, male circumsision does not mutilate the man, nor does it affect his ability to perform and enjoy sexual acts. FGM is simply barbaric.
 

Jade Tigress

RAWR
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
14,196
Reaction score
153
Location
Chicago
Regardless, male circumsision does not mutilate the man, nor does it affect his ability to perform and enjoy sexual acts. FGM is simply barbaric.

My thoughts exactly. I saw this story too and considered posting it here, you beat me to it Caver. :)

It's a barbaric practice and is abuse. I guarantee these girls are scarred for life much more than physically.
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
Regardless, male circumsision does not mutilate the man, nor does it affect his ability to perform and enjoy sexual acts. FGM is simply barbaric.

Actually, that's not true - This is from an article that appeared in the November 1995 issue of M.E.N. Magazine

Circumcision is not a benign surgery. Besides destroying a significant segment of the male's sexual equipment, it has a significant complication rate. According to an important medical study, one serious complication-severe hemorrhage, infection, loss of entire penis, or death-occurs in every 500 circumcisions (approximately 3,700 in 1993).1 According to another study, "Death as a complication from newborn circumcision has been estimated to occur in from 1 in 24,000 to 1 in approximately 500,000 [cases]. Some investigators have actively sought out complications by interview and have recorded rates of 55%."2 These figures suggest that, with 1.2 million circumcisions performed in this country each year, at least 3 boys die each year, and for no other reason than that they were born in the United States. Prospective parents are not given these facts.
However, IMHO, that is neither here nor there. Except in cases where surgery affecting the genitalia of either gender is truly necessary for health reasons, such as cancer, malformation, or accident - rather than the purported "preventative" effects that cause male circumcision to be so widespread in the US.

From the article quoted above:

In the U.S. there is a myth that the natural human penis is a self-destructing time-bomb, ready to go off at any time in an explosion of disease, filth, and horrible stenches, an inevitable disaster which only immediate surgery at birth can prevent. Can this be true? Why and how did this practice of routine infant circumcision begin in the United States?
Non-religious circumcision was introduced into this country on a very small scale in the 1860s for a single purpose-to stop masturbation. Circumcision was used as a deliberate surgical intervention to debilitate and desensitize the penis.
During the Victorian era, physicians began to believe that all sexual activity was dangerous to physical and emotional health. Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of sexuality and was named as the cause of every known disease, from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease, tuberculosis, and death. With every credible American doctor and medical association issuing dire warnings about masturbation, any step taken towards its eradication and prevention was deemed justified.
<snip>
By the turn of the century, circumcision had become a panacea. Amputation of the foreskin was "scientifically proven" to cure and prevent diseases ranging from insanity to epilepsy, malnutrition, hip-joint disease, paralysis, eczema, tuberculosis, headache, hysteria, alcoholism, criminality, and heart disease.
<snip>
During World Wars I and II, many soldiers were forcibly circumcised by military doctors under threat of court martial. Returning WWII veterans were now conditioned to believe that circumcision was the correct thing to do. They were told it was hygienic, that it prevented disease, and that conformity was necessary. Young parents did not object when their newborn boys were automatically circumcised after being delivered in hospitals, though in reality they had no choice. Hospitals did not require anyone's consent to perform this surgery.

Both male and female genital mutilation are performed in the belief that is is in the "best interest" of the children involved that such mutilation occur. I find both practices to be wrong - and please remember that as I say this, that I am Jewish, and of the opinion that circumcision for religious reasons should be performed - if at all - only on adults who truly understand the consequences of their choice to have such a procedure done, not on children who have no voice in what is being done to them.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
My father was circumcised when he was 50 - repeated irritation to him and my mother, repeated infection, yeast issues, pain, ineffective treatment finally led to the procedure. The health of both of my parents greatly increased afterward.

Every male, though, should be given the opportunity to make this decision for himself.

FGM not only removes skin and clitoris (arguably an entire organ in itself) but scarrifies the vulva and urethral vents in such a manner that urination and menstruation are prolonged and painful. The practice often includes reducing the size of these orifices to a harmful degree, such that urination can be retained and even refluxed back to the kidneys.

Sadly, I view the potential for changing this practice much as I view the wearing of burqas and criminalizing abortion. As long as women are willing to do it (even to another woman), it will likely not go away in our lifetimes.
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
My thanks, if that's the right word here, for informing me more deeply of what this 'procedure' entails. I had some of the unpleasant picture but not all as I did not know the extent of what was removed.

"Barbaric" is entirely the correct descriptor for it.

It's torture plain and simple - if a prisioner of war was treated so, there would be a war crimes tribunal before you could turn around.
 

Latest Discussions

Top