Strontium Dog wrote:

redwhine wrote:Big deal; women who have suffered FGM can (usually) still have babies.

In reply to your disgustingly flippant comment (...at least I hope it was flippant; the alternative is unthinkable...)...

There's nothing flippant about facts.

Strontium Dog wrote:Sorry, removing a bit of skin isn't the same as removing an entire organ.

Strontium Dog wrote:But thanks for playing.

redwhine wrote:So it was just disgusting then.

redwhine wrote:Thanks for not taking a look at any of those links. I know not to waste my time in future.

Remember, I'm not arguing that MGM is okay, something which seems to be lost on several of you.

Two people were arrested in November accused of carrying out FGM on a five-week-old baby but, according to the Metropolitan police, there was "insufficient evidence to proceed".

Clive Durdle wrote:

Two people were arrested in November accused of carrying out FGM on a five-week-old baby but, according to the Metropolitan police, there was "insufficient evidence to proceed".

I have lost the plot somewhere. Is not someone legally responsible for this child? How is it they have allowed this to occur? Isn't this very easy to prosecute? All it needs is to say to the parents OK, who actually did this, plead guilty and your sentence gets reduced.

Detectives believe evidence about the mutilation of the baby girl could now lead to a breakthrough and have submitted a file to prosecutors. But because the surgery was carried out overseas they are still unsure whether charges can be brought.

The reason is that under legislation passed in 2003, making it a crime to take or send a girl abroad for genital mutilation, either the victim or the alleged offenders must be UK citizens or permanently resident here.

In the baby’s case, it is understood that although she is now a British national it is unclear whether she was when mutilated. Also the two alleged perpetrators were not permanently resident here at the time.

Medical records are being sought to determine when the alleged crime took place. If it was after the girl got her UK passport, a prosecution is expected to be approved.

3. Professionals. Despite clear guidelines, many frontline professionals (GPs, midwives, teachers, healthcare visitors, social workers) are not trained, do not understand the law and harbour beliefs that FGM is someone else's problem. They are uncertain about the significance of "cultural" or "traditional" values and concerned about accusations of racism. Some worry about patient confidentiality and their role supporting socially isolated clients. Hospitals report a mere 5-10% of FGM cases to the police or local authorities.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been a crime in the UK since 1985. An estimated 65,000 girls aged 13 and under are at risk of mutilation. So why has there been a grand total of zero prosecutions?

for a little clarity. I realise the sentence structure is still messy but

Female genital mutilation (FGM)

There is one Somali practice, however, which
has done more than any other to promote an
image of female oppression, and that is female
genital mutilation (FGM) - also known as female
circumcision. Until recently, every girl, sometimes
as young as six, endured the operation in which
all or part of her genitals were cut away. In the
most extreme version, that of infibulation, the
clitoris, labia minora and much of the labia majora
are excised. The sides of the wound are then
tightly stitched together, leaving a hole the size
of a matchstick at the lower end of the vulva for
the escape of urine and menstrual blood. With
clitoridectomy, it is the clitoris and part of the labia
minora which is taken out, while the least severe
form, Sunna circumcision, removes the clitoral
hood, or inflicts a small cut to the clitoris sufficient
to draw blood. In urban areas in Somalia, the
operation may take place in hospital, so avoiding
the worst infections that can result from traditional
excisers, using blunt unsterile instruments. But the
long-term effects of infibulation - the potential
complications surrounding urination, menstruation,
pregnancy, childbirth and a variety of other health
hazards, are the same, whilst all forms of FGM
radically affect a woman’s sexuality.

Women are seen as the repositories of family
honour, and the rationale for FGM, beyond the
weight of ‘tradition’, is the preservation of a young
woman’s purity - her virginity and her symbolic
cleanliness. Although serving a patriarchal system,
FGM is perpetuated by women themselves. An
uncircumcised girl would have been unable to find
a husband and so become a social outcast – a fate
any mother would want to avoid. The practice is
now being questioned in Somalia, but is still near
universal (McGown, 1999: 148).
In the UK, research indicates that there are still
Somali mothers or grandmothers who feel that
the daughters of the household should be excised
- 36% of Emua Ali’s sample of women defended
the practice (2001: 200-202). She estimates that
this has affected some 5% of girls (ibid: 28), who
have been circumcised either at the hands of an
operator in the UK or whilst on a visit to Somalia.
Tradition dies hard - in spite of the pain it causes,
generations of women have seen circumcision as
intrinsic to their adult identity and they resent an
important part of their culture being branded as
child abuse. But now this taboo topic is beginning
to be broached in public, and many Somali women
and men in the UK say that the practice should
be abandoned, particularly in its most extreme
form. McGown (1999: 150-151) found that 52 out
of her 60 interviewees of both sexes said that the
procedure should be stopped. A key argument by
campaigners is that contrary to popular belief, FGM
is nowhere sanctioned by the Koran. It is not a
religious obligation. Although few would dare admit
it, this knowledge has encouraged some infibulated
single young women to have the operation
reversed, while many will now seek surgical help
before their wedding night.
In 1985, the Female Circumcision Act made
the practice illegal in the UK, and in 1991
directions for the implementation of the 1989
Children Act authorised investigation by local
authorities in suspected cases. On the 3rd March
2004 the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
(Commencement) Order 2004 was enacted,
which “makes it an offence for the first time for
UK nationals or permanent UK residents to
carry out female genital mutilation (FGM) abroad,
or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying
out of FGM abroad, even in countries where the
practice is legal. To reflect the serious harm that
FGM causes, the Act also increases the maximum
penalty from 5 to 14 years’ imprisonment”.145
But still more effective than legislation is the
hard campaigning that lies behind both legal and
community change. In contrast to some western
feminists’ condemnation of this ‘barbaric practice’,
organisations such as the Black Women’s Health
and Family Support (BWHAFS) take a holistic
approach to Somali women’s problems.146 A
promotional CD-ROM launched in the summer of
2003 explained that “We believe in empowering
women, through education and consciousnessraising,
and locating the issue of FGM within the
context of black women’s rights”.147 BWHAFS
offer a range of support services to women,
including advice on FGM. Through contact with
health, education, and social work professionals,
together with religious leaders, they carry out
an educational programme on the topic, and by
means of research, literature, conferences, official
representations, and outreach work, they aim to
influence not only a British but also an international
audience.

The energetic director of BWHAFS, Shamis Dirir,
is but one of a number of women who have
founded Somali organisations in the UK. She has
retained her position - in some other groups, men
have taken over leadership, and women have been
relegated to lesser ranks or voluntary workers. But
in whatever capacity, women as well as men have
sought to better their community through Somali
associations. As a Somali proverb says, ‘you can only
quench your thirst by lifting water with your own

She estimates that this has affected some 5% of girls (ibid: 28), who have been circumcised either at the hands of an operator in the UK or whilst on a visit to Somalia. Tradition dies hard - in spite of the pain it causes, generations of women have seen circumcision as intrinsic to their adult identity and they resent an important part of their culture being branded as child abuse.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The circumstances surrounding male vs. female circumcision are rarely comparable. They're culturally and physiologically separate issues that need to be tackled separately. Turning every discussion of female genital mutilation into a whinge about how no one cares about routine infant circumcision is counterproductive for all parties and an asshole move. You're not furthering your cause. You're diminishing the suffering of others. The average sufferer of MGM hasn't got a clue what the average sufferer of FMG experienced and vice versa. The are separate experiences.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Similarities end at unnecessary non-consensual genital mutilation. The reasons for and circumstances surrounding and actual procedures and physiological impact and subsequent complications and lifelong effects, all of which exist in both cases, are rarely comparable. Insisting they are prevents the specifics of either issue from being tackled which results in a lack of progress in either arena. And look! Baby boys are still being circumcised in the US. You aren't making matters any better.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Pro-tip: start focusing on preventing the harm of routine infant circumcision as opposed to insisting that of female circumcision is no more than the garden variety experience of an infant in a sterile American hospital, performed under anaesthesia by a trained surgeon from which they recover without death as a likely complication. Type I and II FGM, the "nicer" varieties of the procedure, result in death 2.3% pf the time. I swear, even seven or eight years ago, this wasn't the MO of people advocating against routine infant circumcision. I swear insisting a little boy who underwent routine infant circumcision in the United States didn't used to be considered THE EXACT SAME THING an eight year old girl circumcised on a kitchen table by a butcher in Glasgow or Somalia. It was considered fucking horrible and reprehensible but very different in many respects. Now you're not allowed to talk about FGM without the discussion becoming one of MGM being exactly the same thing despite their only similarities in the majority of cases being non-consensual genital mutilation.

Now you're not allowed to talk about FGM without the discussion becoming one of MGM being exactly the same thing despite their only similarities in the majority of cases being non-consensual genital mutilation.

''Baby Doe is now a female person, who has been rendered sterile and completely incapable of reproduction, and who will require medical monitoring and hormonal therapy throughout the remainder of her life.''

According to lawsuits filed in behalf of the two children, the infants suffered severe electrical burns to the penis and adjacent areas when physicians, in separate incidents on the same day, used an electric cauterizing needle as part of the circumcision procedure.

The burns to one of the infants were so severe that his penis was destroyed. A sex change operation has been performed so that the child will be raised as a female, according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the child's parents, who are identified only as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This is not productive. Baby boys are still being circumcised at wacky rates in the US. People still aren't convinced it's a stupid, archaic, barbarous practice with only cosmetic and convenience (if you can call not having to pull back your hood and rinse in the shower inconvenient) benefits because people are relying on faulty comparisons no one falls for to portray it for what it is: unjust. It doesn't matter that in most cases the procedure and results are less harmful than those of FGM. It's a breach of a human's bodily autonomy. You don't need to rely on unfair, dismissive comparisons in order to conclude that it's very, very wrong.

surreptitious57 wrote:The assumption that some professionals here in the United Kingdom may be afraid to report suspected cases because of accusations of racism is worrying because it means the law is not being implemented. The race card is no defence against this practice. Accusations of Islamophobia or Anti Semitism should be completely ignored. Cultural sensitivity is completely misplaced in this scenario. Those who engage in this activity here need to understand it is against the law to do so. The fact that there is extreme reluctance to prosecute is irrelevant although disappointing. So it is about time that those in a position to see do something about it and not be worried about the predictable response from some quarters. Now it should not be that difficult to do. Otherwise it makes a complete mockery of the law. Indeed it may as well not exist

But the Observer has been told there is evidence it continues unabated among communities with links to African, Arab and Asian countries, and "cutting parties" are going on behind closed doors in Britain.

Jackie Mathers, a child protection nurse at NHS Bristol, told the Observer: "We have had intelligence that with the credit crunch, cutters are being paid to come over here and do children in a large number as it's cheaper than families taking flights to other countries."

One police source said he had heard of a girl as young as four weeks being subjected to genital mutilation and that there was a desperate desire to get a conviction. Frustration at the lack of action here is compounded by successful prosecutions abroad. The Observer has been told of two older women working as cutters in London.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:...(if you can call not having to pull back your hood and rinse in the shower inconvenient)...

Strontium Dog wrote:

redwhine wrote:So it was just disgusting then.

I fail to see how.

Strontium Dog wrote:FGM diminishes a woman's sexual pleasure considerably. Surely not as much of a consideration with male circumcision, if the 11 children my grandfather sired is anything to go by.

Strontium Dog wrote:

redwhine wrote:Thanks for not taking a look at any of those links. I know not to waste my time in future.

The links didn't tell me anything I didn't already know and, truth told, I'm not sure what "people sometimes die after unnecessary surgery performed without the victims' permission" is supposed to prove anyway.

Strontium Dog wrote:Remember, I'm not arguing that MGM is okay, something which seems to be lost on several of you.

Equal rights for female and male persons under the age of consent to be safe from genital mutilation (circumcision).

Ban Infant Circumcision

Prohibit religious circumcision of children and infants.

Make male genital mutilation at birth illegal including religious reasons

Ban Circumcision for non-medical reasons for under 18's.

Ban Circumcision

regulation of circumcision

Ban of non-medical circumcision in children.

Allow Adult Circumcision on the NHS

Stop Infant circumcision / male genital mutilation. A childs human rights are denied everytime surgery is performed, that they cannot consent too.

Positive action on FGM

Stop FGM in the UK Now

Consultation Committee in view to incorporate FGM training in Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and Inset days.

Reinstate the ministerial FGM co-ordinator role

STOP Female Genital Mutilation (FGM / ‘cutting’) in Britain

Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation.

YoumanBean wrote:Do you think the girls who are mutilated by trained medical staff in Indonesia are better off than the boys cut ragged with bits of bone in Africa, by the way?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The circumstances surrounding male vs. female circumcision are rarely comparable. They're culturally and physiologically separate issues that need to be tackled separately. Turning every discussion of female genital mutilation into a whinge about how no one cares about routine infant circumcision is counterproductive for all parties and an asshole move. You're not furthering your cause. You're diminishing the suffering of others. The average sufferer of MGM hasn't got a clue what the average sufferer of FMG experienced and vice versa. The are separate experiences.

Dr. Bowers told Africa Renewal that pain is a major problem for her patients. The majority have undergone the most severe kind of cutting, called infibulation, in which the clitoris is removed and the labia are stitched together to form a cover over the vagina. Only a small hole is left for urine, menstrual blood, childbirth and intercourse.

Dr. Bowers is a surgeon who performs “reversal surgery” on her patients to repair the vagina and clitoris so that these women can have more normal lives. “The scar tissue that forms around the clitoris and encases it is uncomfortable. But in the cases where women have been infibulated, by dividing that infibulation, for the first time since the incision they are able to pass urine normally, they are able to pass menses normally. And they are able to have sex or childbirth without a constricting band that prevents those things.”

She says the surgery is 100 per cent effective in alleviating pain for patients. “The relief that overwhelms these women has been one of the reasons women are glad they went through this surgery.
...
”Reconstructive surgery for patients who have gone through FGM/C has been around for a long time. But the technique of clitoral repair surgery was only developed in 2004 by a French urologist, Dr. Pierre Foldès. It entails opening the scar tissue, exposing the nerves buried underneath and grafting on fresh tissue. The procedure reduces the chronic pain associated with FGM/C, allows women to regain clitoral sensitivity and even permits some to attain orgasm.

Results of surgical foreskin restoration are much faster, but are often described as unsatisfactory, and most restoration groups advise against them.
Results of non-surgical methods vary widely, and depend on such factors as the amount of skin present at the start of the restoration, degree of commitment, technique, and the individual's body. Foreskin restoration only creates the appearance of a natural foreskin; certain parts of the natural foreskin cannot be reformed. In particular, the ridged band, a nerve-bearing tissue structure extending around the penis just inside the tip of the foreskin,[14][15] which helps to contract the tip of the foreskin so that it remains positioned over the glans, cannot be recreated

Britain's senior police officers have called for tighter laws to increase the likelihood of prosecution of those who carry out female genital mutilation (FGM) and of the parents who let it happen to their daughters.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) argues that the law needs to be changed in order to increase the chance of conviction, as police forces come under increasing pressure to bring Britain's first case against a practitioner.

quisquose wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/03/female-genital-mutilation-law-police-acpo-fgm-parents-cutters

Britain's senior police officers have called for tighter laws to increase the likelihood of prosecution of those who carry out female genital mutilation (FGM) and of the parents who let it happen to their daughters.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) argues that the law needs to be changed in order to increase the chance of conviction, as police forces come under increasing pressure to bring Britain's first case against a practitioner.

The target for any prosecutions has to be the parents imho.