Alan B wrote:

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.

And about time. I can only repeat my previous post here.

But this campaign by the Guardian shows you were wrong last time:

Alan B wrote:Excellent news. But shouldn't they have been doing this since it was outlawed in 1985?
I suspect that if this petition had not reached it's target, this action would not now be taking place, if ever.

The Guardian has for weeks been supporting the petition mentioned in the article but it is not the same as the petition in the OP and there are loads of other games in FGM town.

It also got 250,000 signatures, substantially more than the one in the OP.

But it is still as confused about the issue as the police are here.

The campaign succeded in getting Gove to write to schools, despite the fact that a huge majority of schools have no 'at risk' pupils in their schools. It's a paper victory, not even pyrrhic.

There is no need to write to every school or every parent, there's no need for a change in the law, all that is needed is for the law to be applied and for the particular communities that practice FGM to be tackled about it.

The biggest problem remains the yuk factor, the squeamishness of those involved to tackle foreign cultures, as demonstrated by the original petition where people actually signed in support of FGM because it was kultur.

The official Government petition reached the required 100,000 sigs. before 30 Jan 2014.
Guardian Dateline 25 Feb 2014

Michael Gove has agreed to write to all schools in England about female genital mutilation, after a Guardian-backed petition urging the education secretary to take action attracted nearly 250,000 signatures.

Until the Government petition reached its target, nothing was about to happen in government circles regardless of the guardian's claim to be 'running the show'. It doesn't matter how long the Guardian campaigned for, what is obvious is that only three or so weeks after the Government petition reached its target, Gove suddenly bows to media pressure - or so the media claims...

This is not decrying the work of the Guardian in this matter, and good work it is. It should also be noted that the Guardian has also condemned MGM, but so far to no avail. I suspect there won't be any action unless a Government petition on MGM reaches 100,00 sigs. Fat chance.

Alan B wrote:The official Government petition reached the required 100,000 sigs. before 30 Jan 2014.
Guardian Dateline 25 Feb 2014

Michael Gove has agreed to write to all schools in England about female genital mutilation, after a Guardian-backed petition urging the education secretary to take action attracted nearly 250,000 signatures.

Until the Government petition reached its target, nothing was about to happen in government circles regardless of the guardian's claim to be 'running the show'.

Except, as I said already, we have 10%!!! of MPs already sitting in the APG on this. That is hardly nothing.

Alan B wrote:It doesn't matter how long the Guardian campaigned for, what is obvious is that only three or so weeks after the Government petition reached its target, Gove suddenly bows to media pressure - or so the media claims...

The Guardian/ IB petition was started on 6th February 2014, the United Nations International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM!

Like I said, there are lots of games in FGM town.

This one even weaker than the one in the OP, it's becoming a moral panic similar to the 1980s/90s Satanic Sexual Abuse hysteria.

Why you would want every primary school child in the country to be taught about FGM when responsible adult people are too scared to mention it when they are aware of it:

Lisa Zimmermann, a teacher at CAB, set up Integrate Bristol after being told that 11 out of 12 girls in a group she was taking on a trip had undergone cutting. It began with four nervous girls writing anonymous poetry and has swelled to more than 100 members calling themselves the #FDL – the female or "fanny" defence league – which has made films, a music video and met Gove.

"We have come so far – from four terrified girls to taking on the education secretary – it's been an amazing journey," Zimmermann says. But until the risks of FGM is taught in all schools, they won't stay quiet, she adds. "Who is going to have that conversation otherwise?

Here's a thought, if it becomes 'mandatory' (wot, legal responsibilty?) for GPs and healthcare professionals to report FGM, what about teachers too?

Instead of meeting her for a chat about wasting tme and money, Gove could have sent round the bizzies and had her arrested for not reporting the crime.

Alan B wrote:
This is not decrying the work of the Guardian in this matter, and good work it is. It should also be noted that the Guardian has also condemned MGM, but so far to no avail.

It has? There's not been much coverage at all, and when there has it's been very mixed message.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/circumcision

For example

A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be? (Yes, it's CiF, but so are most of the anti-FGM articles, and this one is one of the few recent ones directly about about MGM in the UK - the one above, Circumcision and human rights , is a set of letters in response to the antisemitic article)

Then there's this:

Uganda sees mixed progress in male circumcision campaign to combat Aids: An ambitious circumcision scheme to prevent Aids-HIV in Uganda needs to be co-ordinated and scaled up to meet targets*

and this:

Circumcision: the cruellest cut? Pragmatic hygienic practice or genital mutilation? Why is male circumcision causing such worldwide controversy? (Imagine a headline asking whether FGM was just a hygienic practice, and why it caused controversy)

The last article condemning the practice was in July 2012:

Circumcision is an affront to decent human behaviour: We rightly decry female genital mutilation. Why, then, are so many happy to condone the male equivalent?

followed by it's own letters in opposition:

Male circumcision: the practice is very different from female genital mutilation: FGM is unlawful, carries huge risks and causes suffering.



*There are a few similar ones on this topic. I'll let this explain why the articles about HIV prevention 'progress' are bunk:

A fatal irony: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase transmission of HIV

I suspect that one reason there have been no convictions or even cases is that most people don't have access to the knowledge. You wouldn't know about a child's mutilation unless they told and I suspect that is very unlikely.

Where professionals come in contact with it would most often be during childbirth where the operation is a generation in the past.

Just what we need ...

http://www.lapidomedia.com/maldives-cle ... XI.twitter

CUTTING OFF a piece of a young girl’s flesh might at last be getting the recognition it deserves in the West as a human rights violation, but in the Maldives it is making a return as a ‘religious obligation’.

A fatwa has been issued by an influential Islamic scholar here, citing specific hadith or sayings of the Prophet Mohammed.

FGM is one of the five things that are part of fitrah, or nature, says the fatwa by Dr. Mohamed Iyaz Abdul Latheef, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives, posted on http://www.mvislamqa.com, a website which seeks to ‘convey the true message of Islam.’

The other four things are: ‘shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs,’ writes Latheef, who is also a candidate of the Adhaalath Party, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, for the upcoming parliamentary elections in the South Asian archipelago.

Latheef quotes a hadith of the collection by Prophet Mohammed’s wife, Aisha, as saying, ‘A bath becomes obligatory if one sleeps with your wife and the circumcised parts touch each other.’

Latheef quotes a hadith of the collection by Prophet Mohammed’s wife, Aisha, as saying, ‘A bath becomes obligatory if one sleeps with your wife and the circumcised parts touch each other.’

Well, the answer there is not to have circumcised parts... That doesn't stop one having a bath, though.

Or to stop choosing mass murderers as role models. The sooner people stop doing things just because the 7th century equivalent of Kim Jong Un approved of them, the better.

Breaking news

Two face genital mutilation charges

First UK prosecutions over female genital mutilation announced by CPS

More to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26681364

I wonder if they'll say why they think this is the case to prosecute compared to others that they haven't?

Excellent news!

HomerJay wrote:I wonder if they'll say why they think this is the case to prosecute compared to others that they haven't?

I am still of the opinion that if the gov. petition hadn't reached 100,000 we would still be waiting for something to happen.

Edit. It now stands at 107,367.

HomerJay wrote:

Breaking news

Two face genital mutilation charges

First UK prosecutions over female genital mutilation announced by CPS

More to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26681364

I wonder if they'll say why they think this is the case to prosecute compared to others that they haven't?

Woah.

Hang on, I need a bigger woah.



That's better. Now, from the statement released by the CPS, comes a disturbing little snippet (my bold).

The CPS wrote:The CPS was asked to consider evidence in relation to this allegation of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was alleged that following a patient giving birth in November 2012, a doctor at the Whittington Hospital, in London, repaired FGM that had previously been performed on the patient, allegedly carrying out FGM himself.

I really hope I am misreading this, but this sounds a lot like a doctor being prosecuted for undoing an infibulation. I like irony as much as the next person raised on a steady diet of Monty Python, but this would be a bridge too far even for me.

As I read it, he carried out the repair on FGM that he had previously performed. I would assume that it was the previous FGM action for which he was being charged.

Edit. I admit that the CPS statement is poorly worded and not as precise as it should be.

Alan B wrote:As I read it, he carried out the repair on FGM that he had previously performed. I would assume that it was the previous FGM action for which he was being charged.

I hope you are right, but the statement does not say that he was the one who performed the previous FGM. It seems to say that the repair of the previous FGM - I can only assume this means "undoing" an infibulation - is the FGM he is being charged with.

If your reading of the situation is correct, surely the extract would have read:

Fuck, I wish the CPS had wrote:The CPS was asked to consider evidence in relation to this allegation of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was alleged that following a patient giving birth in November 2012, a doctor at the Whittington Hospital, in London, repaired FGM that he had previously been performed on the patient, allegedly carrying out FGM himself.

or

Fuck, I wish the CPS had wrote:The CPS was asked to consider evidence in relation to this allegation of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was alleged that following a patient giving birth in November 2012, a doctor at the Whittington Hospital, in London, repaired FGM that had previously been performed on the patient, allegedly carrying out that previous FGM himself.

I really hope you are right and this is just a careless use of language on the part of the person who wrote the press release.

Actually, there is another interpretation of this poorly worded statement:
The patient had just given birth, during which process the FGM, that was previously in place, was 'damaged' and no longer met the 'requirements' of FGM. His 'repair' was an attempt to return the FGM to the status quo before birth.
Edit.
I would also infer from this interpretation that the FGM involved would be the Type 3, where the labia are sewn together. If that is the case then that would have to be undone before birth could proceed. I think that Types 1 & 2 would not hinder birth in the same way that Type 3 would.

From the above link:

"I have also determined that Hasan Mohamed should face one charge of intentionally encouraging an offence of FGM, contrary to section 44(1) of the Serious Crime Act (2007), and a second charge of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Dr Dharmasena to commit an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

"These decisions were taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors."

Now, who is this Hasan Mohamed? Is he related to the woman who gave birth in this case, her husband or brother, perhaps? It would explain his actions with which he is being charged.

Alan B wrote:Actually, there is another interpretation of this poorly worded statement:
The patient had just given birth, during which process the FGM, that was previously in place, was 'damaged' and no longer met the 'requirements' of FGM. His 'repair' was an attempt to return the FGM to the status quo before birth.

Ah. You could well have it there. The doctor repaired the woman's infibulation, meaning re-infibulating her. I read it as repairing the infibulation by de-infibulating her.

I suppose it depends upon what one considers to be "repair" when talking about a woman with her labia sewn together.

Alan B wrote:Edit.
I would also infer from this interpretation that the FGM involved would be the Type 3, where the labia are sewn together. If that is the case then that would have to be undone before birth could proceed. I think that Types 1 & 2 would not hinder birth in the same way that Type 3 would.

Not to mention that Types 1 & 2 refer to the removal of tissue which is pretty hard to "repair". I linked earlier to a source suggesting that Type 3 (infibulation), whilst often perceived as the harshest form of FGM, was also the most reversible. Apparently a doctor who had reversed a number of infibulations had found that, in many cases, the clitoris was almost intact under the stitched-together labia.

At any rate, back to HomerJay's query as to why this case was being prosecuted when others had not.

The reasons those previous cases were not prosecuted have already been explained in this thread. Generally, there have previously been problems establishing the citizenship status of the adults involved and the procedures have taken place outside UK jurisdiction. This case has neither of those problems.

The CPS can prosecute, therefore they are.

One snag that occurs to me is that the woman might well testify that she consented to having the infibulation reinstated.

Alan B wrote:From the above link:

"I have also determined that Hasan Mohamed should face one charge of intentionally encouraging an offence of FGM, contrary to section 44(1) of the Serious Crime Act (2007), and a second charge of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Dr Dharmasena to commit an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

"These decisions were taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors."

Now, who is this Hasan Mohamed? Is he related to the woman who gave birth in this case, her husband or brother, perhaps? It would explain his actions with which he is being charged.

I had assumed he was the woman's husband.

Nicko wrote:At any rate, back to HomerJay's query as to why this case was being prosecuted when others had not.

The reasons those previous cases were not prosecuted have already been explained in this thread. Generally, there have previously been problems establishing the citizenship status of the adults involved and the procedures have taken place outside UK jurisdiction. This case has neither of those problems.

The CPS can prosecute, therefore they are.

Nope.

"We have determined there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction and that no further action should be taken in relation to these four cases."

Insufficient evidence isn't lack of jurisdiction.

I suspect the victim wouldn't fess up to the identity of those involved.

The CPS has decided to take no further action in one other new case and in three cases that were under review having been considered previously.

In the new case it was alleged that two parents had arranged for their daughter to undergo female genital mutilation while abroad.

A UK resident can be prosecuted for taking a child abroad for the purposes of FGM.

In one of the other cases a suspect contacted an FGM helpline to request the procedure for his two daughters after misunderstanding the purpose of the service for victims.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... en-charged

Alan B wrote:Actually, there is another interpretation of this poorly worded statement:
The patient had just given birth, during which process the FGM, that was previously in place, was 'damaged' and no longer met the 'requirements' of FGM. His 'repair' was an attempt to return the FGM to the status quo before birth.
Edit.
I would also infer from this interpretation that the FGM involved would be the Type 3, where the labia are sewn together. If that is the case then that would have to be undone before birth could proceed. I think that Types 1 & 2 would not hinder birth in the same way that Type 3 would.

With this last interpretation isn't it less of a concern if a (we assume) informed and grown woman requests FGM be carried out on herself, although since it obviously wasn't whatever the hospital or the trust paying for the caper thought was going on in there then this is still a serious case of malpractice

HomerJay wrote:

Nicko wrote:At any rate, back to HomerJay's query as to why this case was being prosecuted when others had not.

The reasons those previous cases were not prosecuted have already been explained in this thread. Generally, there have previously been problems establishing the citizenship status of the adults involved and the procedures have taken place outside UK jurisdiction. This case has neither of those problems.

The CPS can prosecute, therefore they are.

Nope.

"We have determined there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction and that no further action should be taken in relation to these four cases."

Insufficient evidence isn't lack of jurisdiction.

It's still a fucking good reason not to proceed with a prosecution.

In at least one of those cases, the lack of evidence included lack of evidence that the victim was a citizen when she was mutilated and a lack of evidence that her parents were permanent residents.

HomerJay wrote:I suspect the victim wouldn't fess up to the identity of those involved.

Again, a good reason not to proceed with the prosecution.

HomerJay wrote:

The CPS has decided to take no further action in one other new case and in three cases that were under review having been considered previously.

In the new case it was alleged that two parents had arranged for their daughter to undergo female genital mutilation while abroad.

A UK resident can be prosecuted for taking a child abroad for the purposes of FGM.

As well as for a host of other crimes committed abroad, I believe. As can permanent residents.

Could they prove it?

Apparently not.

HomerJay wrote:

In one of the other cases a suspect contacted an FGM helpline to request the procedure for his two daughters after misunderstanding the purpose of the service for victims.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... en-charged

So clearly his daughters had not been mutilated. Should he be charged with not mutilating them?

Social Services should certainly be watching this family like hawks, but what crime could this man be charged with?

My point still stands. In a case where the CPS has a case, they are proceeding with it.

They do not seem deterred at all by "political correctness". What deters them, it seems, is the lack of a case that will stand up in court.