FGM FFS!

[Gob]

More than 1,000 women and girls have been treated by the NHS in England for female genital mutilation in three months this year, according to figures that reveal the extent of the practice in the UK.

Between April and June, there were 1,026 newly recorded cases of FGM in England, latest figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre show. Among the cases, there were nine girls under the age of 18.

Since the HSCIC started to record FGM data in September 2014, there have been 4,989 cases reported nationally. In the most recent tranche of data, 60 NHS trusts out of a total of 160 submitted data for one or more FGM attendances.

There is likely to be a spike in the number in the next recording period after recording FGM attendance became mandatory for acute trusts on 1 June 2015, and becomes mandatory for GP practices and mental health trusts from 1 October. Only one GP provided data for April to June.

The HSCIC found that, in 75% of newly recorded cases, women and girls themselves reported that they had suffered FGM, rather than it being reported by someone else. Among those who went to the NHS, 43 had undergone deinfibulation, or “reversal”, where the vagina is reopened after a large part of it has been sewn shut, in the most extreme form of mutilation.

Tackling FGM has risen up the political agenda since last year, after high-profile campaigns and international gatherings attracted public support. A Guardian petition saw the Department for Education write to schools about the dangers of FGM, while steps have been taken by the Department of Health and the Home Office to ensure cases are recorded and victims receive more support.

The new figures exposed the shocking extent of FGM in the UK, said Tanya Barron, CEO of global children’s charity Plan UK, which campaigns against FGM.

“We’ve seen hugely increased attention on this problem in the past few years and we are now waking up to the scale of this terrible practice,” she said.

“What we must always keep in mind, though, is that this is not specifically a British problem. FGM is a practice with an inherently global dimension. And while it’s vital that we do everything we can to stop FGM here in the UK, as well as to support the girls and women affected by it, the reality is that this practice won’t end in the UK until it is ended worldwide.”

Mary Wandia, FGM programme manager at Equality Now, an NGO that campaigns for women’s rights around the world, said survivors in the UK were still not getting the medical and psychological support they needed. “Our figures with City University London show that nearly 10,000 girls under 14 living in England or Wales are likely to have undergone FGM. Cases are likely to exist in every single local authority,” she said.

[BoSoxGal]

I wonder if any of the reported cases resulted in criminal prosecution? I'm guessing not many, if any.

[rubato]

How many of those happened in the UK and how many were done overseas and discovered during a medical exam in the UK? It would help to know where best to focus the efforts.


If large numbers were being performed in the UK you would expect to see a certain number of admissions to medical facilities caused by infection or other complications.



yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

From Wiki:

The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applying to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was introduced by Baroness Rendell of Babergh (Ruth Rendell) on 14 July of that year as House of Lords Bill 98.[2] It extended previous legislation by also making it illegal for UK nationals to perform female genital mutilation outside the borders of the UK, and increased the maximum penalty from five to 14 years.

The Act replaced the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The Act does not extend to Scotland, the corresponding legislation there is the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005.

Experts said in 2003 that about 74,000 women in the UK have been subjected to the procedure, and that up to 7,000 girls would be at risk to be subjected to it abroad.[3] As of 2009 no one has been successfully prosecuted in the UK, under either the 1985 or 2003 Acts.[4]

[MajGenl.Meade]

I certainly applaud efforts to halt FGM - or GM for that matter (no pun intended). But... I've always been a little intrigued by the way in which some (let's say it: liberal) people argue strongly that westerners should never, never, never interfere with native tradition.... except in cases where they should.

As a conservative, I don't have a problem with such interference, whether it's FGM or any other counter-productive clinging to tradition. (Hmm. Conservative? Anti tradition?). Well, that's not the point.

On the other hand, many native traditionalists that I've met (guess where) are 100% for traditions such as unsanitary circumcision rites but are quite opposed to living in a traditional grass hut with two cows and a goat and no TV.

It does seem as though "native tradition" is a very malleable prospect.

[Big RR]

Meade--because they are more traditions than anything else, people do feel the ability to pick and choose. E.g. I would bet most men of jewish descent (and their children) are circumcised (although in the hospital by a physician) even if they never set foot in a synagogue or keep Kosher, and I know many RCs who attend mass every week but do not go to confession and practice birth control. Also, many people have their children baptized even though they do not attend church or have any professed religious beliefs. In many cases I think it is a tie to their old culture(s), and FWIW, as long as no one is hurt, I don't see a problem.

FGM is in a class by itself, because it is not really done for cultural reasons as much as to affect female sexuality. It's kind of like leaving sick babies out in the cold to die--as a modern society we should not accept it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whatever we as a modern society should or should not accept (and we shouldn't - no argument here), it certainly is absolutely based upon cultural belief and practice. My main question is the hypocrisy of "you can't interfere with native customs... except for the one I don't like". It seems to be based upon an assumption that white men should not but white women certainly can decide which native cultural phenomena are to be interfered with.

One of the chief (shrill and still uttered) condemnations of colonialism was the awfulness of "interfering" with native culture and societal behavior/beliefs. Mind you, halting thuggee and suttee were apparently OK, even though it was white men who did it.

[Big RR]

Well to the extent that any behavior/practice that is widespread could be termed a cultural belief or practice, I guess I can't argue. My point is that there are many relatively innocuous practices that are based on cultural beliefs and I would agree we should not impose our will and change them, but when those practices involve physical or emotional harm to one or more persons, or when they are performed to extend the control of one person over the behavior of another, they should be looked at differently.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Why?

[Big RR]

Because they involve serious physical and or emotional harm to the recipients. Someone being baptized as a young child suffers very little if at all; someone who Is the recipient of FGM, on the other hand, is seriously harmed. Big difference IMHO.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh of course. But why does that give you (or me) license to choose which cultural phenomena "we" allow and "we" forbid?

[Big RR]

If they are done in the US we have that right because they are done in our country. If they are not, I do think we have a moral imperative to protect others from harm. Does that give us a right or license to dictate our morality to others outside the US? Probably not, but it gives us a reason to do so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, yes indeed - I was not counting "in the US" or "in our own country" (for those in the UK or France, say). Our culture is informed by different standards.

So you're defending the use of force by the USA to dictate morality in foreign countries even if we have no right to do so? A moral imperative does not confer a right? Or does it?

[Gob]

“The mistake we made was we gave people a kind of cultural exemption from normal, reasonable, decent behaviour.”
Trevor Phillips former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think General Sherman said that first though - or something like it.... Maybe it was General Terry... or Crook.... or Gibbon... one of 'em anyway.

[Big RR]

Defending the use of force? Not necessarily, but then we've used force to achieve economic and imperialistic objectives, and I would think the defense of others ranks much higher on the list of desirable ends than these. But if we do use such force, it should be done only very rarely, and only where the risk of harm is great; and even then only after political and economic pressure have failed. Much as we might like to, we cannot right (let alone identify) every wrong.

As for the right to use force for this purpose, I just don't see it. A defensible reason is not the same as a right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Moral imperative is not equal to "right"?

[rubato]

It is interesting that there appears to be some boundary between FGM (which encompasses a wide range of practices) and male circumcision. The latter is common in the U.S. and continues with no public outcry.


When my wife practiced medicine in Oregon and Washington she was expected to perform male circumcision (the standards of practice in Calif. are that a pediatrician does it so she's off the hook now ). She said most people's reaction was that "Jr should look like Dad" in that respect and that was it.


Now most FGM is more extensive and life-changing so I don't disagree with the distinction. I merely raise it to illustrate what we (liberals and the few conservatives out there who engage in moral reasoning rather than parroting granpa's bigoted opinions) think the boundaries should be.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Meade--IMHO, no, a moral imperative is not equivalent to a right.

E.g., to lead to the end of an unjust war, I may have to burn down the depository of draft records. This could be a moral imperative, but even so, it does not give me the right to do so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ending an unjust war is not a moral imperative? But you do have a right to do that?