UKC

Dear god, what can be done?



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-38290888

In reply to Big Ger:

I think the "god" part of your post is the problem there Big Ger.

I would say it's unbelievable but it isn't. Disgusting cruelty.

As to what can be done, well how about imposing some of those 14 year sentences on the parents. It's not like it's going to be something that can be kept secret, at some stage the victim will have to go to the doctors, for a problem in that area. Other than that, it will only be education that can make the difference.

In reply to Hugh J:

Nothing there I disagree with.

In reply to Big Ger:

We could enforce the law for a start. Unfortunately no one wants to be seen as politically incorrect and criticise Muslims!

In reply to Big Ger:
Just heard on the TV the government have allocated 80 million to deal with this!

That is a lot of money and much needed health resource for dealing with people who are deliberately not following the law in this country , and even go underground to commit a criminal act that already carries quite a hefty sentence.

In reply to Jim C:

The people who've undergone FGM do need health resources - it's an utterly barbarous practice.

In reply to Jim C:


<sarcasm>
Clearly the hefty sentence isn't enough as it doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. What we need is mandatory life sentencing, at a minimum. That'll learn 'em.
</sarcasm>

In reply to Hugh J:
FGM is a cultural practice carried out across religious divides by people with some very backwards views.

What can be done (here) at least is education. " It's not pleasant, I know that, but it important we talk to you about this" is a conversation I've had a lot this year following assemblies and videos that have raised the issue at school.

In the end these deluded parents think they are doing the best thing for their daughter. Ridiculous as it sounds that's generally the motivation.

Edit why the dislike? Is it for calling people backwards?

In reply to Jim C:

The people not following the law are the perpetrators. The victims are children when it happens. It's not like a young girl is wanting to be cut and mutilated.

In reply to Dave Perry:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/bbc-and-christian-traditio...

It's not any one religion, it's not directly religious and it's very important to make that distinction. God (of which ever team) did not say to do this. I agree with the archbishops point, but it transfers to the other lot too.

As for political correctness, I think it's more that Britsh people have been too embarrassed to talk about anything down below, mixed with a ridiculous reluctance to challenge because it's easier to stay quiet.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Oh dear. I'm embarrassed for you.

In reply to Dave Perry:


Christians and other religions do it too!

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
For further information, and to stop this degenerating into a Christians vs Muslims debate;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

In reply to marsbar:

It's not like a young girl is wanting to be cut and mutilated

If only that were the case. Often girls are eager for this as it's a sign of acceptance/ adulthood. Of course they don't know exactly what it entails - I guess this is part of the wider education process

In reply to marsbar:
Did this problem exist in the UK 50 years ago?
I don't think so.
It's another benefit brought to the UK by migrants, along with honour killings, arranged marriages and slavery.

In reply to baron:


Not very good on British history are you?

In reply to baron:




In spite of it occurring in the UK, I for one am glad that the victims and more important potential victims of these crimes, live here. They stand more of a chance to avoid such horrors. Thank heavens that the UK may provide a safe place for a few.

In reply to wintertree:

Comedian,
When was the last time slavery was legal in the UK?

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Can't disagree that there's a better chance of protection innthe UK than in many other countries.
Maybe the perpetrators shouldn't be in the UK in the first place.

In reply to baron:

The lack of charity in your posts is astonishing. You're saying you'd rather people suffer elsewhere than them be here where we can help them.

What happened to you that you have such a lack of compassion to our fellow humans?

In reply to Big Ger:

If people knew that girls from communities which practice FGM would be screened at least once for FGM during their time at school there would be no chance of getting away with it and it wouldn't happen.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Good luck with that proposal.

In reply to andyfallsoff:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could protect all of the people in the world?
As we can't then we should, at least, help some of them.
Hence the UK's overseas aid budget.
But the issue here is people breaking UK laws.
Laws which had helped wipe out practices that we deemed unacceptable.
To have certain cultures reintroduce these practices into the UK is intolerable and we should take stern measures to put a stop to such practices, even if that means upsetting certain cultures.
If that's being inhuman then so be it but past and current attempts at protecting the innocent have failed miserably.

In reply to baron:


Ronnie and Reggie must be turning in their graves.

In reply to Big Ger:

I wonder why male genital mutilation gets a free pass? I guess for women removing the clitoris and sewing etc is much more about control. But afaik there's no science to support any benefit of chopping off a foreskin either. Kind of shows how hard public/cultural opinion is to change

In reply to baron:



Hey I'm with you there. Perhaps we cut down on all crime not just that perpetrated by people not originally from the UK, but by anyone of any skin colour and from any foreign land... Let's go full on Big Brother (the none TV version)! Brilliant, where do I cast my vote?

Bad people do bad shit. Hopefully the victims will got more sympathy and a chance of justice living in the UK. But then again...

In reply to baron:


2009 (with a lot of caveats)
jk

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


Good people can do bad shit too, none of us are fully immune to ignorance or being misguided by others.
jk

In reply to Tall Clare:


The 80 million is not to pay for the health issues, health effects appears to be an additional cost that is not being divulged.
As I understand it the 80 Million is just for education , and policing the practice.

In reply to john arran:



What is needed, apparently, is 80 million of taxpayers money spent on educating those that carry this out.

I agree with the post that suggests that children who are at risk of this , should be monitored by a doctor.

If the parents know that they are being watched, and they WILL be found out if they have allowed this to happen, and that they will be caught and prosecuted, that might help more than any 'education'

In reply to marsbar:

Not arguing with you in any way on that , so not sure where I indicated otherwise?

I'm not saying lock up kids who have been mutilated, I'm saying lock up those that carried out the mutilation, and/or those who solicited the practice to be carried out on their children .

So children at risk should be monitored, and the parents 'educated' to the fact that their children WILL be checked , and further 'educated' as to what will happen to them if they allow FGM of their children under their care.

In reply to Jim C:


How do people come to know something without education?
jk

In reply to Big Ger:

The situation a couple of years agi was that despite there being a harsh deterrant there have been no convictions and only a hand full of failed attempts at prosecution.

In reply to jkarran:



Don't try and tell me that they carry this out underground, because they are ignorant of the law.
They do it knowing fully that it IS against the law in this country.

In reply to marsbar:


But religion (that is, their variant of their religion) is a large part of it in a large proportion of the cases across the world.

Religion is usually bound up with wider society, and so religion is not the *only* factor; but that doesn't change the fact that, world wide, the Islamic religion is the biggest factor behind FGM.

In reply to Jim C:



We've got two competing policy ideas looking to solve the same problem here. The question surely is if you have £80m, do you get fewer girls mutilated if you spend it on education or law enforcement in this area. You have decided that you know the answer, but on what basis? I suggest none at all, just a reactionary emotional response, which is the worst possible way to make policy.

In reply to Jim C:


Are you under the impression that the victims of this practice are choosing to be mutilated.

In reply to marsbar:

But the blog in your link does make it clear that it is a practice mainly carried out in Muslim countries

In reply to lummox:

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain?

In reply to Jim C:


Are you sure people know the law so well? In my experience the depth of ignorance in society today is unfathomable. Would you know exactly what your rights were and who to turn to with total unwavering confidence as a worried 12 year old learning (without fully understanding the implications of course because nobody taught you what the euphemisms meant) you were going to be cut this summer? Would you know as GP, school nurse, social worker, health visitor, teacher, classroom assistant or concerned relative who may be at increased risk, when and what potentially subtle signs to look out for? And then who to contact with your concerns with the knowledge you will be supported in your actions and that the response will be timely, appropriate, proportionate and effective? Do you know the world so well Jim because I don't and the 12 year old me sure as hell didn't.

Children educated today will be the parents of the future, sadly some still likely facing pressure from their traditional, perhaps poorly educated parents and grand parents to cut their children in 30 odd years time. Wouldn't you rather they had a different perspective available, a broader picture of societal norms and the knowledge of support services available to them to help them resist that pressure, to help them protect their children and break the cycle.

There are multiple fronts in most battles and in this one the two being discussed are basically education and enforcement, these aren't mutually exclusive activities and funding one does not imply defunding the other. For whatever reason you seem to see little value in education instead placing your faith in force which to date has failed to eradicate the problem. Perhaps you're right but I'd like to see your reasoning.
jk

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

It is a practice mainly carried out in countries which are ethnically Arab and by default this means the majority in most of these countries are Muslim of one sect or another.

My sister in law is a muslim and that is her view too!

In reply to Kemics:


Absolutely. The horrific thing is the mutilation. Once you've accepted that cultural conceit, why does a party make it any different to a Bar Mitzvah?

In reply to Dave Perry:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_co...

Odd conclusion you've drawn. A read down the details for some of the countries might be worthwhile, it paints a far more varied nuanced picture than yours.
jk

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I think that apart from the cruelty, there are some pretty appaling complications associated with FGM and no known health benefits. However, there are medical reasons where male circumcision is beneficial and it is also recommended for HIV prevention and can prevent cancer in both males and females:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Also, I pretty sure it's not done at a Bar Mitzvah. "Brit milah" is an observance carried out on infants.

In reply to Dave Perry:


It's also carried out in many countries that are not Arabic. For example Indonesia:

"Half of girls under 11 years old in Indonesia are circumcised, according to the latest finding by UNICEF, raising awareness and calls for bans on female genital mutilation (FGM) practices in the world's most populous Muslim majority country."

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/06/fgm-indonesia-hits-alarming-...

There's no getting round it -- though, yes, other factors and local tradition are important as well -- the number one thing that FGM correlates with across the world is the Islamic religion.

In reply to Hugh J:


The supposed medical benefits of male circumcision are either minor or disputed. They are not the reason that it is done.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Medical reasons are not the reasons in the majority of instances, but it is certainly the case in some instances and does not have the consequences of FGM.

BTW, I'm not supporting it here, especially on the grounds of religion, I am a non-believer, I'm just pointing out some facts.

Also, how about reading the article I posted? There is no way you did it in 3 minutes!

In reply to Hugh J:


I have previously looked into the whole issue of the claims for and against medical benefit for male circumcision.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In the case of urinary tract infection (UTI) or a misplaced urethral opening or a curvature of the head of the penis it is recommended.

I maybe wrong, but I feel you are perhaps being influenced by your religious beliefs. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though - I supplied evidence in a well referenced article, where is yours?

In reply to jkarran:




Just look at the pictures innit, them's muslim countries. I don't wanna read nuffin.

In reply to Hugh J:



Of course. I have my head up my arse today.

In reply to jkarran:
Thanks for that link. I went through some of the figures. In roughly in alphabetical order:-

Africa

Benin = 49% of muslims practice fmg; 23% of christians.
Burkino Faso 82% of muslims practice fmg
Central African Republic = 39% of muslim women
Chad = 61% of women practice fgm of which 95% are arabs
Djibouti 93%- practice fmg 98% of which are muslim
Eritrea 89% of women practice fmg of which 99% are muslim
Ethiopia 74% of women practice fmg & 92% are muslims

I then got bored and went to Indonesia where 97% of muslim women suffer fmg and muslims consist of 85% of the population.

draw your own conclusions and thanks for the link.

In reply to Hugh J:

I fully accept the need for circumcision in a small minority of cases with a medical condition.

What I meant was that there are little or no medical benefit associated with *routine* circumcision of normal healthy males.

In reply to jkarran:

These are very switched on people hell bend on getting round a law that they are fully aware of , you are just aiding and abetting them get off the hook, by offering them an ignorance get out.
And as I'm sure you know, in this country ignorance of the law excuses not, so hit them hard, they are playing with us, as we are seen as a soft touch.

Heather Nelson, Chief Executive of the Black Health Initiative, said..."What we're finding now is that where once girls were taken abroad to be cut, specialist midwives are now flown over and several girls are cut at the same time"

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's true, but what's the implication? That the best way to prevent FGM is to convert Muslims to Christianity (or Atheism)?

It's helpful in building a case against Islam, to support the statement 'Islam is nasty' - but how is that helpful to the cause of reducing the number of girls being mutilated? Note that I'm not saying you shouldn't point it out - facts are facts - I'm asking you why.

In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps the answer is to prosecute parents for Child Cruelty? and I don't mean if caught doing it, I mena if caught with a child that has had it done

Now we can't prejudice the child by jailing their parents (as the child will suffer) perhaps a more creative punishment is warranted - how about a facial tattoo "I allowed my child to be mutilated" would be sufficient disincentive?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Not if you take all their children away from them. Did I mention that the people who actually perform the mutilation are at the top of my short list entitled "Reasons to consider the death penalty"?

I find it staggeringly hard to believe that cultural/religious backgrounds can override human empathy to such a degree.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I can't disagree with you there. However, in the link I included also states this:


Surely given that these areas are heavily influenced by the Catholic Church and their lunatic policies in regards to contraception they need all the help they can get in regards to HIV?

My point is, that whilst both examples of ritual gential mutilation are abhorrent, male circumcision (by your own admission) can have medical benefits, it does not lead to the appalling consequences of FGM such a increased period pains, incontinence or indeed an inabilty to pass urine, problems with pregnancy and childbirth, to name just a few.

In reply to Hugh J:

I was under the impression that male circumcision doesn't help prevent HIV transmission, and that it was a religious/cultural thing.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I looked into FGM and it's links to Muslims by googling, after posts on here linked the two, and it's not unique to Muslims.

In Sub Saharan Africa (and other places) where there's a mix of Christians and Muslims, people of both religions carry out FGM, with it being a cultural practice.

So it's wrong to assume that not enough is being done out of a desire not to upset or be critical of Muslims.

In reply to Timmd:


The way this particular pendulum has swung is curious. I guess there was a time when the popular explanation for everything was racism, sexism etc, no matter the facts or context. Now, the go-to explanation for something that's bad is political correctness.

Perhaps in a utopian future, people will look at what is going on and base their explanations for it on things they know to be the case - rather than grasping instinctively for the current bogeyman that has been placed by the prevailing cuture at the forefront in their minds.

To put it less abstractly, perhaps it's hard to bring about prosecutions for FGM for a shitload of reasons no one here has got the first f*cking clue about.

In reply to Hugh J:


These studies are highly dubious. For example see:
http://intaction.org/oxford-university-how-the-circumcision-solution-will-i...

By the way, I do agree that FGM is vastly worse than the male counterpart.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't know the best way of preventing it. Education would help. I don't think we can go after the parents, since, while FGM is bad, having your parents in jail is also bad. I think we need to go after the cutters. That will take members of those communities being willing to tip off the police.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In an ideal world we wouldn't have either.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm hopeful that the recent changes providing universal education and mandatory reporting and treating the issue as child safeguarding will reduce the problem here. What can be done elsewhere I'm not sure. I read something about someone persuading religious leaders to ban it, which is probably a good idea, whatever your view on religion, you have to admit a lot of people seem to like being told what to do, so it makes sense to use that not fight it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You've answered a very different question to the one I asked there. Ever thought of a career in politics?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I've given that a like!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I guess that's better than a dislike for asking a question to get to the bottom of what someone is saying [shakes head wearily with a mild but undeniable feeling of despair].

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My reason for highlighting the Islam angle is simply that it helps to understand a problem in order to overcome it. For example, are imams likely to be on your side in trying to stamp out FGM, or are they likely to be against you (whatever they might say in public)?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Please, Coel, do NOT go into politics. Don't even think of it. Please.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree that's relevant. I wonder what the real levers of influence are - could the govt realistically influence what imams preach? And crucially of course, it isn't plausible that every UK mosque is promoting FGM. So, while it's useful as a first step to be honest about the link with Islam, that alone serves no purpose as it doesn't give you a target to aim at.

As I implied above, the problem with stopping at the 'it's Islam' level is that you open yourself to the attack that all you're trying to do is entrench an anti-Islam sentiment amongst non-Muslims. Which is about the most unhelpful thing you can do.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's my thinking too (but less bluntly).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

http://www.mcb.org.uk/muslim-council-of-britain-speaks-out-against-female-g...

http://www.global-alliance-fgm.org/en-gb/fgm/historicalnote.aspx

In reply to Timmd:
In my 1st post I did not state it was uniquely a muslim problem.
In my 2nd post I did state it was mainly an arab problem and thus predominately muslim. Whilst i stand corrected on the 'arab' bit, by Jkarran's link to Wiki I can now see it is much more widespread than I believed but it is predominately a problem and is carried out by large populations of muslims.

I posted this at 1703, you maybe didn't read it:-
.
"Africa:-
Benin = 49% of muslims practice fmg; 23% of christians.
Burkino Faso 82% of muslims practice fmg
Central African Republic = 39% of muslim women
Chad = 61% of women practice fgm of which 95% are arabs
Djibouti 93%- practice fmg 98% of which are muslim
Eritrea 89% of women practice fmg of which 99% are muslim
Ethiopia 74% of women practice fmg & 92% are muslims

I then got bored and went to Indonesia where 97% of muslim women suffer fmg and muslims consist of 85% of the population."

With the exception of Indonesia these are countries in africa. The reference to arabs and/or muslims are from Wiki.

Clearly a smaller proportion of christian women practice fmg than in muslim/arab countries.

In reply to baron:

http://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-fgm-in-victorian-london-383...

As for the other aspect of your post, maybe if Britain hadn't gone around building an empire and invading various countries, we wouldn't have such a diverse population now. But that's what happened and we live with the consequences good and bad.

In reply to Dave Perry:

If you have seen the map it shows a fairly obvious stripe across Africa and continues. It appears that FGM in those countries pre dates Islam or Christianity and that it has in some of those places become part of the local version of whichever religion took over.

I don't think it's a Muslim thing as such, or the figures for Bangladesh for example would be very high.

To be clear, risk of offending anyone or their sky fairy of choice should not be an the issue in dealing with FGM. The Muslim Council of Britain made a very clear statement condemning FGM which I already linked to.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I can hear the screams of "racism" from here.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm circumcised, it has advantages in cleanliness and, ...ermmmm... to put it politely, ....staying power.....

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm not sure racism is the first problem that springs to mind when we're talking mandatory genital inspections by the state.

In reply to Dave Perry:
On face value this could be interpreted as something written as saying it's something which is a 'Muslim thing', but fair enough - thanks for replying.

'We could enforce the law for a start. Unfortunately no one wants to be seen as politically incorrect and criticise Muslims!'

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


No chance, eh? So you know the girl's been cut. Just remind me of how you got the evidence of who committed the offenses (carry it out, "assisting") and how you ensure that the girl's welfare is protected as the primary outcome.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Mandatory genital inspection of "certain groups"? Oh boy, there would be uproar amongst the SJWs.

In reply to Big Ger:

I love your outrage at all these imagined responses.

In reply to Dave Perry:


that's probably unfair on the vast majority of muslims who live a perfectly happy life without the need to resort to these measures.
simply despicable human beings that a 20p 303 round would put an end to, regardless who their f**king god is

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I love your apparent denial of them.

In reply to marsbar:
Interesting article but bringing up discredited (even at that time) practices from 150 years ago is hardly a reasonable comparison to modern day FGM.
What it does do is show how backward the practice is and how it has no place in the UK.
As for Britain roaming around the world and this being the reason for many migrants, then this is undoubtedly true.
That's not the discussion, migrants are welcome as long as they can leave their barbaric culture behind and follow rhe law.

In reply to Big Ger:


So you're saying circumcision makes it less sensitive? Anyhow, it's ok with me if any male who wants to get themselves circumcised at age 18 for that reason can do so.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Apparently so, though I've never had complaints from any female partners due to my "lasting longer" than other men.


What about blokes like me who were done at age 4 due to a restrictive foreskin?

In reply to Big Ger:


mate, you need to know that what women say and what women mean are actually 2 entirely different things

In reply to Big Ger:

I prefer to wait for real things to complain about.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Ah, you live a life without speculation or imagination, fair enough.

I'll have to remember that.

In reply to wilkie14c:

Oh indeed, but as I say, "I've never had complaints", I'm sure most women would complain if they felt short changed.

Do you get a lot of compliments in that case?

In reply to Big Ger:


This doesn't seem to quite add up, although it could be poor reporting from the BBC.

The charity said it had a referral from a school in Leeds last week regarding an eight-year-old girl who they thought was playing truant.
"In fact she was disappearing from class because it took her an hour to go to the toilet, such was the pain she was experiencing," Ms Nelson said.

So did the school refer to the charity rather than the police? Did the charity inform the police? It seems obvious to ask those kinds of questions.

There is some sort of explanation but it's very weak:

"People will say why don't you call the police if you hear about one of these parties? But when you call the police you find that not every officer has an awareness of what FGM is."

But if you were running a charity to stop FGM you'd think you'd have a liason officer to speak to or if not, then that would be the problem, not the random one on the end of the phone.

But we're told

The force said it had no "specific intelligence" about FGM "parties" taking place.

So you'd think the pertinent issue might be why the charity (and the school) isn't working with the police.

Heather Nelson was on radio 4 last month talking about BME cancer, another of the charity's campaigns, I was struck by it because she was saying that black women wouldn't respond to information that included images of white middle class women, so didn't go for screening when it was offered.

But another woman had a different explanation:

"I find a lot of people, they'll find out something is wrong but they keep it to themselves and they're praying. They're praying that God will heal them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37991460

That seems like a reluctance to tackle cultural issues, with a propensity to blame outside agencies.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Holy copy and paste Batman!

I think your computer might be broken, it seems to completely change the facts and drop the ends of the sentences, but don't worry, i'll help you out


15% of Protestants, 12% of traditional religions and 7% of Roman Catholic women.


73% of traditional religions, 69% of Roman Catholics and 65% of Protestants


46% of Animist (what the f*ck is animism?) women, 36% of Protestants, and 35% of Catholic women


FGM prevalence rate was 45%. 61% of Muslim women, 31% of Catholics, 16% of Protestants, and 12% of traditional religions. The prevalence also varies with ethnic groups; the Arabs (95%), Hadjarai (94%), Ouadai (91%) and Fitri-batha (86%), and less than 2.5% among the Gorane,


(Honestly dude?????)

Estimates for FGM prevalence rate of FGM in Djibouti range from 93% to 98% (You really got the "98%" from the sentence "93% to 98%" to mean that??)


Unicef reported FGM prevalence in 99% of Muslim women, 89% of Catholics and 85% of Protestants. (Oh yes, you did...)


FGM is prevalent in 92% of Muslim women, 72% of Protestants, 67% of Catholics and 67% of Traditional Religions


I sugest you use your time to take some reading comprehension classes

In reply to winhill:
The procedure if a teacher suspects FGM is an urgent referral to Social Care and Social Care would then have a multi agency meeting, which would include the appropriate police officer. It's very very clear in the new legislation so it should be happening.

Why the charity is apparently breaking up parties without involving the police is a very good question.

I also doubt that any police officers in England don't know about FGM, it's been a really big issue recently and everyone working for any organisation involved in child safeguarding will have had mandatory training.

In reply to Mr Lopez:





And what proportion of women in these countries belong to Muslim, Protestants, Catholics, Traditional, Religions?

In reply to marsbar:


Yep, here too.

In reply to Big Ger:

It's a part of Buddhism, incidentally, that a speculative mind can become an agitated one.

Presumably because conclusions can be hard to find.

In reply to Timmd:



Without speculation my friend, we'd still be in living in caves.

In reply to Big Ger:
That's a very fair point , it's probably driven us to explore.

In a world full of people predicting what's likely to happen, and cities with what can seem like their endless possibilities, learning how to not speculate is probably healthy too.

I only posted that it 'can' lead to an agitated one, not that it does.

In reply to Big Ger:

www.google.com

You are welcome

In reply to Big Ger:


I think that Mr Lopez is indicating that it appears to be a cultural problem rather than a religious problem, as others have stated. From the figures he has quoted, it appears to be a problem within certain countries and the practiced religion doesn't seem to make a huge difference in percentages of victims.

Oh BTW, I was also "done" when I was 4 years old for the same reason. When it comes to our sex life, Mrs J is always moaning!

In reply to Hugh J:


Oh I think religion does make a huge difference, it justifies the practice.



Nice one.

In reply to Mr Lopez:




Want me to go on? The problem is primarily a Muslim one, with a small, very small, number of other religions/cults practicing it affecting a small number of women, though this is not to minimise the damage it does to these women..

In reply to Big Ger:
Nothing will happen because it is too sensitive an issue. You can see that in the number of prosecutions so far. So it will continue.
Personally I would like to see it ended but my solution is too extreme for most people's tastes, but it would solve the problem.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The girl's welfare is protected by getting her away from people that cut her genitals.

Arrest the parents and give them a chance to give up the guy who did it for a reduced sentence. Go through their computers and phones looking for anything related to paying someone for FGM. If a kid that lives in the UK gets FGM then the parents know and if they don't go straight to the police they are complicit.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
From Wiki Regarding Benin:-
".....The prevalence varies with religion in Benin; FGM is prevalent in 49% of Muslim women, 15% of Protestants, 12% of traditional religions and 7% of Roman Catholic women...."

If you add 15%+12%+7% it comes to 23% So what is your point?

Chad, Glad you read it. 95% of the population are arabs.

From wiki;- "The prevalence varies with religion in Chad; FGM is prevalent in 61% of Muslim women, 31% of Catholics, 16% of Protestants, and 12% of traditional religions. The prevalence also varies with ethnic groups; the Arabs (95%)...., ""


Well I did make a typo when doing Djibouti. From Wiki "Estimates for FGM prevalence rate of FGM in Djibouti range from 93% to 98%.[3][68] According to a UNICEF 2010 report, Djibouti has the world's second highest rate of Type III FGM, with about two thirds of all Djibouti women undergoing the procedure;" It then goes on to say that the country is predominately MUSLIM.

How terrible of me! It could be 93% of women and not the higher figure of 98%.!! Only 93% eh? Puts a different perspective there. Send your daughters there and see whether the 5% difference reassures them!!

So 'dude' Other than saying I should do more cut and paste and less editing I really don't think your comprehension is too good. I have not distorted the facts. You simply don't understand them!

In reply to Dave Perry:

OK, 15+12+7 = 34% before someone notices!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



I'd like to see every girl at school in the country given an FGM check. Any victims whole families should be deported because they would all have known what was happening. Naturally an agreement with certain countries needs to be made so that deportation can take place. The family loses their assets and are deported immediately.
If this was done properly I'd bet there would be a lot of people making arrangements to leave the country asap.
I'm not expecting any of this to happen but it would solve the problem.

In reply to I like climbing:


And if they are British ?

In reply to I like climbing:

I wouldn't. A mandatory vaginal inspection of every pre/post-pubescent girl in the UK might possibly be viewed as a government overstepping its bounds. It would also be a complete waste of time in 99.9% of cases, and the pointless 'veneer' of non-discriminatory even-handedness is fooling no-one, while causing massive distress to millions.

edit. Your prescription is so daft, far-fetched, immoral and impracticable, I realise I've been 'taken in' by a 'joke' suggestion. My bad, as they say.

In reply to I like climbing:

Nobody liked the nit nurse at my school, at least the boys wouldn't mind the vagina inspector.

In reply to Jim C:


Fu*k you, I'm not aiding and abetting anyone. I'm saying ignorance of the law and the scope and scale of the problem is widespread, not just within family's which may be considering the practice but within wider society and the services that can potentially safeguard the children at risk.


So? Do you think I'm disputing that?

Can you explain to me how better education in this area is a bad thing? You may note I'm not arguing against enforcement or improving our enforcement efforts despite the fact it has to date proved utterly ineffective.
jk

In reply to I like climbing:


Whilst I support harsh penalties for this, deporting people after the crime won't solve the problem - it will just stop the problem occurring in this country. The same children will be victims, they're just more likely to be so in a country where there is far less chance of being supported by the state after being attacked.

The problem to me is that this happens, regardless of where in the world. I've not seen any evidence that the practice is spreading from immigrants and their families to the native population.

Until this is eradicated in the root cultures the practice will continue to follow the people as they move around the world.

In reply to Dave Perry:


Nice cherrypicking, I particularly like the veneer of impartiality given by your truncated and edited 'alphabetical list' but if you'd actually read through the whole list and summarised honestly you'd have seen there are plenty of countries in there where it is identified as a predominantly tribal, regional or cultural practice rather than a religious one. You'll also note that the countries you cited and many others with high prevalence of FGM are not generally ethnically Arabic, contrary to your initial assertion.

My argument is only that the issue is significantly more complex than 'It's the Arabs'.
jk

In reply to GrahamD:


Then there's an opportunity to turn them against the practice with an evidence base gathered from the medical community and from victims, and to use them as agents of change at home and abroad. Some of them will be better placed to understand the communities involved than most people.

That would be one of the two choices I would offer them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So you're saying 'jail the parents', and obviously try to find the perpetrator - and stating that this is best for the girl's welfare. That hasn't really moved things on.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I too would say 100% jail the people for sure those who actually carry the procedure out, thereafter jailing one or more of the parents is certainly on the cards , just the same as it is for all other child abusing parents, we should not treat this any differently from other forms of child abuse, rape, broken limbs. beatings, burns etc.

No one would go to those other kinds of abusers and just tell them (as if they did not already know) that there is a law that they have broken and they cannot do that to their children, and leave it at that.

There is no ignorance under the law.

In reply to Jim C:


Do you seriously think that's what people are suggesting?


Of course there is! Doesn't mean ignorance is a valid defense against prosecution.
jk

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think anyone's going to argue with that.


This is where I think it's difficult. I would guess that in general, you've got both parents agreed that the mutilation is the right thing to do, and don't have a plan of further acts of abuse that must be stopped. So the child ends up with parent/s in jail, i.e. total destruction of the family, and I don't believe that this can be shown to be in the best interest of the girl (it would be different if, following the cutting, she was going to be the victim of a string of further offences, as would be the case in most other child abuse cases).

The trouble I have is that it sounds like you're supporting using the law for retribution for the parents' immoral act, not to protect the girl. If you destroy the family, this could be completely devastating for the girl, who has got completely conflicting ideas of right and wrong coming from home and the state. Do you genuinely believe that the girl's going to thank the state for locking up her dad?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


If someone is willing to practice FGM on their child it is symptomatic of a patriarchal view of women that is correlated with a lot of other unpleasant practices including arranged marriages, beatings, lack of interest in education and honour killings. There could be current siblings or future offspring at risk of FGM.


The law is there for protection, retribution, reformation and deterrence. Whether the girl will thank the state for locking up her dad is not the only consideration. Maybe she won't but maybe she will change her mind after 10 years away from him. Maybe locking up the dad will protect siblings from FGM and deter a large number of other parents.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That may be so, but are you willing to assume that all of those things will happen to justify imprisonment of parents?


Does that mean that jail is the best solution to protect them?


Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Lock'em up now and look back in 10 years time to see if solved the problem?

In reply to jkarran:

No intention to cherry pick. I simply took the first few countries on the list. You're absolutely right. Some of the countries may not be predominately populated by arabs and/or even possibly muslim. I never said they were. I just posted the % of those women who'd had fgm carried out in muslim/and/or arab populations as wiki listed.

Any way this is a side issue. The OP asked what is to be done about it?

In reply to Dave Perry:

What is being done is that any woman who gives birth and is a victim of FGM her daughters will be assumed to be at risk. Any girl missing from education particularly from high risk countries such as Somalia etc is reported. We are educating girls about FGM at school, so that they know what it is and what to do if one of their friends says they are going for a party to become a woman etc.

Meanwhile in other countries efforts are being made to change opinion and stop myths about FGM.

It will take time to make changes.

In reply to marsbar:

Quite right! A combination of legislation - which we have, enforcement and education.

Out of curiosity, how do you know or find out that the parent has been subject to fgm?

In reply to Dave Perry:
When they are giving birth it's hard to hide
I think they are asked by the midwife in advance, because it can cause massive complications.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It is very often the mothers that impose FGM on their daughters, and locking up both parents for much of their childhood is also pretty destructive to the girl.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I also think it will deter older girls from seeking medical help if they think their parents will be locked up.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


In general locking parents up is evidenced to be destructive. However I wonder if a parent willing to do this to a child can be related to the general evidence? Are they suddenly going to reform from an inhuman mutilator into a good parent, or will they continue to make atrocious decisions about their child's welfare? I don't think enough people have been locked up for this to reach an evidence base?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

A conviction, presumably, requires cooperation from the girl. If she thinks her family will be imprisoned then she is unlikely to cooperate. If she is offered restorative surgery and counselling along with indepth work with her family to educate them of the dangers and long-term health risks, then maybe she would be more agreeable.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Mutilating a child's genitals is so obviously something you should get jailed for it seems weird that people are even arguing about it. Suppose it was a nose that got cut off instead of a clitoris. Would anyone argue 'her nose is already cut off so it won't happen again and it is destructive to grow up with a parent in jail'.

The government could decide they are going to have mandatory medical checks at some point in secondary school. They don't have to be specific to FGM it could be a general checkup that looks for many things and detects FGM as well. They could have an amnesty period before the checks are introduced where parents that hand themselves in and tell the police who did the cutting get probation.

In reply to girlymonkey:


I'm not sure it does if there is physical evidence of FGM from a medical examination. It seems extremely unlikely that a child could undergo FGM without her parents knowing it had happened so if they have not reported it to the police then the assumption should be they are complicit. The onus should be on them to prove they had nothing to do with it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
If I attacked my or someone else's daughter with a knife and inflicted bodily harm I'd expect to go to jail and if it was my daughter for her to go into care.
Why is FGM any different?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Even if not a physical examination (I suspect there must be though, as otherwise it can't be proven), there still needs to be cooperation in terms of reporting or even talking to authorities. If schools talk about issues surrounding FGM, and the girls know that reporting it will not land their family in prison, then maybe more would talk to authorities about it, hopefully even before it happens.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Perhaps not but the woman she will become might, if it breaks the mold and means her daughters don't in turn have their clitoris and labia cut off by an unqualified, unregulated criminal.

It's commonly recognised in law that a child is not capable of making informed decisions about their own future; this same logic renders their feelings about the imprisonmet of their abuser quite low down the list of priorities.

You also comment about parents who intend no further abuse after FGM. To me it is crystal clear that every single day after the mutilation the parents have a choice to take their child to the state for medical attention. Every single day that they do not do this they are committing further acts of neglect and abuse.

I see the logic in comments offering amnesty to parents who report themselves and give details on the mutulator. In doing so their daughter gets medical attention and there's a chance to find the mutilator and stop them butchering any more children.

In reply to wintertree:


Cases like this show the weakness of trying to focus on the cutter.

Legally, the people who facilitate the travel and the activity of the cutter face greater culpability, even if it is one of the parents.

Without that facilitation the cutter wouldn't even be in the country. A parallel might be Mr Big (or Mr Nice) who employs drug mules to facilitate his drug smuggling business.

The simple fact is that you are more likely to be prosecuted if your dog fouls the footpath than if you slice you daughter, without prosecutions the message is that we don't take it seriously and you won't be sanctioned if caught.

In reply to Big Ger:
Certainly in education, safeguarding as a whole is a huge issue and fgm is high priority.

In reply to wintertree:


To clarify my point, I think that in imprisoning parents there's a major risk of seroiusly screwing the kid up, long-term.


You may count that as neglect and absue, but the relevant question is what ends in a better outcome for the girl: locking up parents or some other approach that maintains the family unit?


So do I. But I am deeply skeptical of the suggested "check girls and lock up parents" approach to this problem. I think it could be disastrous for many of the girls, even if someone somewhere gets a feeling of satisfaction that a bad person has been punished for their crime.

In reply to wintertree:


If not prosecuted they will continue to make atrocious decisions, they will continue to have more children and go on to mutilate( or solicit/ facilitate) mutilation of more of their children.
Apologists for this practice have to accept that more children will suffer mutilation because of this attitude.
No one is saying that locking up a few parents will be good for those parent's children, but it would be for the greater good of many more children. Who is arguing against locking up paedophile parents?

I despair, of this , tell them off, and educate them attitude, to FGM abusers.
That line is not being proposed for other child abusers. ( nor should it be)

In reply to Jim C:

I just trust people who've done research on this and formulated policy having convened experts and examined every option in detail about 10 million times more than I trust you to come up with the most effective solution.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Nowhere else in safeguarding children would such abuse be allowed to go unpunished. Either by parents/perpetrator going to jail and/or child being removed from the family home.
I haven't seen an explanation from any experts as to why FGM should be treated differently.

In reply to baron:
I don't think you understand the arguments here.

The situation at the moment is that there has been a review of the law on this in the last year or so, and there is an offence that targets the parents, not just the cutters. But there haven't been any prosecutions (I think).

We don't know why there haven't been prosecutions. My guess is that it's very difficult to prosecute for reasons no one here understands, not that known cases are being let off the hook.

No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be prosecutions (although there's a bit of misrepresentation going on to imply this) - but me and others are saying that when it comes to sentencing, jailing parents may do more harm than good.

Personally I am very skeptical that if some prosecutions were achieved and parents jailed, that we would then see an effective deterrent effect and see the problem go away. I think a more likely effect is that people would do it differently so as not to get caught (e.g. at a different age, in a different country, etc). This is why the effort might be better put into to trying to stop it happening in the first place rather than going after parents and hoping for a deterrent effect which we have little reason to believe will occur, when it might be very easy to still commit the crime yet avoid prosecution.

I don't know the answer to the problem, but whatever is done must pass some pragmatic tests to check that it's a good policy: it must improve the outcomes for the people concerned, and it must be effective in reducing the number of people affected. It might be that introducing some mandatory medical check in schools will reveal all the evidence needed to get loads of prosecutions, and that jailing the parents will act as a deterrent and the practice of FGM will end. I just don't find this case compelling. I think there are loads of reasons that mandatory medical screening would be a waste of money and be ineffective; and I think that jailing parents could bring a whole load more problems and may not act as a deterrent.

I do think however, that it sounds like an easy-to-grasp "something must be done" response that hasn't had any scrutiny and the consequences and costs haven't been thought through (while assumptions about the outcomes have been made based on nothing but wishful thinking). I'm not pretending to know the answer, I'm merely challenging those who seem sure they do to think a little bit more deeply about what they're saying.

This problem appears to me to require a very well thought through response where the consequences have been considered deeply with reference to reliable, relevant evidence that provides a strong case for generating the desired outcomes. I find the tone of the way some people are discussing this to be the absolute opposite of this. Obviously, being misrepresented is also quite irritating.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't think the problem will completely go away,not while some subscribe to some sort of meaning to this savagery. But a strong and consistent message, and education, accompanied by suitable incarceration, punishment, and removal of victims from the perpetrating home, is the only logical response to the situation I have seen here.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
There is no argument.
The law concerning the safeguarding of children is clear as are the procedures for protecting children 'at risk'.
The only thing not clear is why people aren't prosecuted.

In reply to Big Ger:


How would you know? Done before and after tests?

In reply to baron:



Well, one issue is that, if FGM has been done, then the girl is likely not in danger of *further* such abuse. This reduces the rationale for separating the parents and child.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I wouldn't want to be the official who makes that call!
If someone stabs their daughter, for whatever reason, and then argues that it was the right thing to do then would that make the child less 'at risk'?
FGM is treated differently because it's a cultural thing. It shouldn't be.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Try applying that logic to any other crime "Well, he's already murdered his wife so there's not much chance of him murdering her again and it would be a shame to separate the children from their father".

If someone puts religious/cultural practices above the physical well being of their child and the law they are likely to engage in related religious/cultural practices. For example, beatings, honour killings, forced marriage, forced wearing of niqab and disapproval of education of girls.

Even though that girl can't be mutilated twice she could have sisters and the parents could have more children in the future.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


We already do this to some degree with murder (and most other offences). The conviction would be the same, murder but the sentence would be very different for someone who killed say an abusive partner in a crime of passion to someone who killed a stranger for sadistic pleasure. One would likely receive a relatively short custodial sentence recognising the seriousness of the offence against society while recognising the offender poses little risk to others outside of the very specific circumstances that lead to the killing. The other recognising the ongoing threat they pose would likely receive a whole life sentence for public protection.


When did we start punishing people for what they are likely to do? Who decides on what grounds what is likely?


Those factors would obviously have to be considered when weighing up the best option but unless we start sterilising prisoners then convicted parents can go on to have more children when the leave jail (or even within). Or would you advocate a whole life tariff?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


That is a totally different argument. The sentence is lower because the crime is not premeditated and the person is not motivated to do it again. FGM clearly is premeditated, the person would do it again under the same circumstances because of the same cultural forces as caused them to do it the first time. Not being *able* to do it again because the damage is already done doesn't get you a lower sentence for doing the damage.


They get punished for what they did. You put forward factors in mitigation such as the effect on the child of jailing a parent and I put forward factors against mitigation such as the likelihood of further damage to the child or siblings. If the system allows arguments about what is likely to happen in the future to mitigate a sentence then counter arguments about what is likely to happen in the future are also legitimate.


They should be subject to the same post release regime and parole conditions as paedophiles and parents convicted of severely injuring their children for non-religious reasons.

In reply to baron:

No ones arguing "because it's a cultural thing". We're looking at the risks and benefits of different responses, purely in terms of outcomes. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


What conditions? Paedophiles obviously have very specific conditions relating to their crimes; similarly those found guilty of "assisting" (not sure of the actual offense) FGM should have very specific conditions to protect siblings of the victim and to ensure they cannot promote the practice.

The simple point is that each case must be examined according to the specific facts and not pre-judged without regard to outcomes for the victim. There may be cases when jailing both parents is appropriate, but no one can say that this should be done in all FGM cases as you need to consider the facts of each case and how the best outcome can be achieved.

If we had a system that always assumed a hefty jail sentence was the best way to deal with crime, we'd be bankrupt and have horrendous crime rates.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
But the responses to child abuse, real or suspected, aren't open for negotiation if you're working with children.
There are processes that are clearly defined for all professionals.
This is the result of many child abuse inquiries and a determination to avoid any ambiguity.
So while discussion of responses is obviously interesting it avoids the fact that the response is dictated by already existing rules and laws.
My question remains 'why, apparently, is the law not being enforced?'

In reply to Jon Stewart:


It should be handled as a serious violent sexual assault and the judge should have the option of passing a long prison sentence. Like any other sentence the judge should take into account the specific facts including the outcome for the victim but also including deterrence and protection of society at large. Maybe in some cases one or both parents could be offered probation: for example if they had clearly had been influenced by others and had now changed their views, turned themselves in to police and gave evidence against the organisers of the FGM.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Honestly, read it again.



'Traditional religions' are not Christian, they are African Traditional religions. However, even if you take things like Vodun as being "Christian", that's not how percentages work.

If 65% of British males smoke and 70% of British females smoke you don't get that 135% of the British population are smokers.


You said "61% of women practice fgm of which 95% are arabs", which has no resemblance with what the link says. "45% of woman practice FGM" is the figure, no 61%.

61% is the percentage of muslim girls affected by it, and that is 61% of muslims, not 61% of the population, nor 61% of the 45% affected.

And no, 95% of the population are not Arabs. What it says there, is that the prevalence of FGM within the Arab ethnic group is 95%. That is 95% of Arab girls suffer FGM. Then there's a list of the prevalence in other ethnicities (which you ignored). "Hadjarai (94%), Ouadai (91%) and Fitri-batha (86%),.

Prevalence in these contexts means the percentage of girls within those groups or religions that suffer FGM. So it is not saying that 95% of the entire population are Arabs. The percentage of the population in Chad that are Arabs is actually 12%.

Your sentence to be somewhat correct would be along the lines of "45% of women practice FGM. 61% of muslim women practice FGM. And 95% of Ethnic Arabs practice FGM"


You didn't make a mistake there, the figures are a range between 93 and 98 %, so anything in between is correct.

What you did was to pick the highest random number you could find and state that that was the percentage of those victims that were muslim. You made that up and it has no resemblance to what the link says.

You said "93%- practice fmg 98% of which are muslim", when the link says "prevalence rate of FGM in Djibouti range from 93% to 98%"


You posted a selective list of 7 countries, 4 of which you distorted the facts beyond recognition (the last 4), and the other 3 you intentionally left out the full story, weighing all of it strongly towards an anti-muslim/arab bias.

So dude, the problem from my side is not just a nitpicking on figures from random topics, is the way you distorted the facts to make it fit an agenda knowingly or unknowingly, which is very damaging.

It is these falsehoods and misconceptions that get bandied freely around which cause events like what happened this week in Forest Hill, and increasing attacks on innocent people just because they pray to a particular imaginary friend, dress in different clothes, or have darker skin. That's just not on.

It also doesn't help the case to combat this practice, which is a complicated minefield of ethnic, traditional and cultural ramifications to simplify so to an "it's a muslim problem" false narrative..

Anyway, back on topic

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


http://www.menshealth.co.uk/sex/5-ways-circumcision-will-change-your-life

http://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/how-to-last-longer-in-bed

In reply to baron:

It's a cultural thing.

In reply to Big Ger:
So it's one of the benefits of our much lauded multi cultural society?

In reply to baron:
"Benefits"? Can't see that myself.

Gaining a medieval savagery, inflicting it on innocent children, importing bastards to carry it out, and then expecting the NHS and social services to bear the costs. Could be a benefit I suppose.

In reply to Big Ger:


Isn't that what the British Empire was made for?

In reply to Big Ger:


How do you know? All the guidance for professional is pretty clear about how to detect and report FGM, but the prosecutors don't seem to be able to charge and convict the perpetrators. I suspect it's more to do with standards of evidence in these cases where the victim is not compliant in providing evidence against their parents.

Once the crime's been reported do you think the CPS is saying "we're not interested, we'll be accused of racism"? Or, given the introduction of the legislation and its subsequent review, do you think they're under pressure to come up with a conviction quick smart?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think that happens before it ever gets to the CPS, as it did in Rotherham.


We live in hope it will change mate.

In reply to Big Ger:

Have a look at the number of reports vs convictions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37364079

I don't think there is much in common with Rotherham where victims weren't listened to, here we have pressure from the top to get convictions but an apparent inability to deliver them.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Let's hope this comes to fruition then;