FGM case in Atlanta

---

Many religious beliefs are based on the Bible instead of what you say here. If you consider that the Bible was God inspired...Christians constitute less than 1/3 of the world's population, and the percentage is dropping. Of that 1/3, certainly not all of them accept that the bible is the literal word of God. Also (and somewhat unlike the Koran), the bible is not a law book. What's legal, and what constitutes acceptable behavior, are set by people. But even among people take their marching orders from the bible, there are numerous interpretations. There are disagreements over the meaning of modern legal documents; the bible wasn't even written in a modern language.And then there's the Muslim person who thinks his holy book is right, not yours; and there's the Hindu person who thinks his holy book is right, not yours; and there's you, who thinks your holy book is right, not theirs. And if you're fundamentalists, and certain in your interpretations, the only possible result is conflict.And what about the many people who believe that none of those books are the inspired word of a god? They don't seem to much matter to you.

I forgot to post the piece last night Thor, sorry. Here it is:MGM?The plight of Nigerian mother Pamela Izbekhai, a resident of Sligo arrested earlier this month for ignoring a deportation order, has raised the issue of Irelands refugee policy in relation to those fleeing Female Genital Mutilation. Before looking at the particulars of Ms Izbekhai’s situation, it would be interesting to turn the whole thing on its head and imagine this barbaric ‘tradition’ practiced in reverse:MGM; Male Genital Mutilation! A procedure whereby enough of the mans sexual organs are hacked off with a rusty blade to ensure that he will never experience sexual pleasure; that’s ok though, because enough are left to allow him procreate. A cultural rite of passage that all boys must go through before they can be deemed fit for marriage. Can you imagine it? Can’t you just picture the horrified faces of men from all corners of the earth at the mere thought of such a procedure? Such shock, such disgust, would surely provoke an understandable outcry on an international scale; and doubtless failsafe procedures would swiftly be rushed into place to stop this affront to humanity. Men just wouldn’t put up with such a thing. The societies in which FGM is practiced today are strongly patriarchal, in fact this practice could be said to be a direct by-product of a patriarchal society. Surely somewhere along the line Germaine Greer has had something to say on the subject; it would be most interesting to hear it.An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk of the procedure, this breaks down to approximately 6,000 per day. It is practised extensively in Africa (in 28 countries, no less) and is common in some countries in the Middle East. It also occurs, mainly among immigrant communities, in parts of Asia and the Pacific, North and Latin America and Europe. The procedure sometimes consists of clitoridectomy (where all, or part of, the external clitoris is removed), excision (removal of all, or part of, the labia minora), and cutting of the labia majora in such a way as to create raw surfaces, which are then stitched together in order to form a cover over the vagina when they heal. A small opening is left to allow menstrual blood escape.According to the World Health Organisation the ages of females violated in this way ranges from shortly after birth to sometime during the first pregnancy, but is most commonly preformed between the ages of four and eight. Sometimes girls will be told to sit in cold water beforehand, a paltry attempt at pain reduction. More commonly, however, no steps at all are taken to reduce the pain. The girl is immobilized, restrained by an adult or adults and her legs are forced and held open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid, scissors, a razor blade or basically any available cutting instrument. When the mutilation has taken place, thorns or stitches may be used to hold the two wounds of the lost labia majora together, and the legs may be bound closed, often for up to 40 days. Antiseptic powder may be applied, or, more usually, pastes - containing herbs, milk, eggs, ashes or even animal excrement - which is believed to facilitate healing.The effects of this procedure can lead to death. When it does not, the horror of genital mutilation doesn’t end with the healing of the wounds. During the procedure pain, shock, haemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. Afterwards urine may be retained and serious infections often develop. [Use of the same instrument on several girls without sterilization can cause the spread of HIV. More commonly, the chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours of the nerve which can result from clitoridectomy and excision cause discomfort and extreme pain. FGM can have even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids, which are raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars and dermoid cysts.] – Amnesty International.The psychological, psycho-sexual and emotional effects of Female Genital Mutilation are serious, and they are life lasting. The removal of the clitoris head seriously impairs the woman’s sexual pleasure; indeed one of the reasons put forth by advocates of the practice is that it discourages excessive masturbation and that a mutilated woman is far less likely to be unfaithful to her husband. The ritual is seen a sexual ‘cleansing’ of sorts and the words used to describe it are synonymous with that; ‘tahara’ in Egypt, ‘tahur’ in Sudan or ‘sili-ji’ among the Bambarra, an ethnic group in Mali. These words, in direct translation, mean purification, decontamination and cleansing. The mindset is obvious; if a mutilated woman is considered clean by way of her mutilated state then the unmutilated woman can only be dirty. In some FGM-practising societies unmutilated women are regarded so unclean as to be disallowed handle food and water. A Mrs Njeri, described as a defender of female genital mutilation in Kenya says: "Circumcision makes women clean, promotes virginity and chastity and guards young girls from sexual frustration by deadening their sexual appetite". The same Mrs Njeri is a woman who has undergone the procedure herself and doesn’t fully understand what has been done to her, in that she cannot know how much more responsive and enhanced her sense of sexual sensation would be had she not been mutilated in this way, it seems safe to assume.[First sexual intercourse can only take place after gradual and painful dilation of the opening left after mutilation. In some cases, cutting is necessary before intercourse can take place. In one study carried out in Sudan, 15% of women interviewed reported that cutting was necessary before penetration could be achieved. Some new wives are seriously damaged by unskilful cutting carried out by their husbands. A possible additional problem resulting from all types of female genital mutilation is that lasting damage to the genital area can increase the risk of HIV transmission during intercourse.During childbirth, existing scar tissue on excised women may tear. Infibulated women, whose genitals have been tightly closed, have to be cut to allow the baby to emerge. If no attendant is present to do this, perineal tears or obstructed labour can occur. After giving birth, women are often reinfibulated to make them "tight" for their husbands. The constant cutting and restitching of a women's genitals with each birth can result in tough scar tissue in the genital area.] – Amnesty InternationalThat women are expected to go through this sort of physical and mental torture in order to keep their vaginas ‘tight’ for their husbands is, thankfully, beyond the imagination of most western women. Apart from the obvious downside, there are far more psychological and emotional issues affecting these women than the damage to their sexual enjoyment and expression. Personal accounts of mutilation reveal feelings of deep anxiety, terror, humiliation and betrayal, all of which would be likely to have long-term negative effects in a mental and emotional sense. One brave victim of the barbaric procedure, Hannah Koroma of Sierra Leone, relives her experience:“I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. I was told by my late grandmother that they were taking me down to the river to perform a certain ceremony, and afterwards I would be given a lot of food to eat. As an innocent child, I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered. Once I entered the secret bush, I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked. I was then carried by two strong women to the site for the operation. I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved. When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight, I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part in the operation were half-drunk with alcohol. Others were dancing and singing, and worst of all, had stripped naked. I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife. After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk. The stuff they put on my wound stank and was painful. These were terrible times for me. Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright. The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain all over again. Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anaesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I haemorrhaged and became anaemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections.”To regard this simply as a method of controlling women’s sexuality and reproductive functions however, would be wrong; simply inaccurate. The act of mutilating women in this way is now so old as to have become a deeply embedded tradition and is accepted and even actively encouraged by many women themselves. It is culturally significant and besides that, the sense of shame connected with being unmutilated is so great in many cultures that women defend it and wouldn’t dream of having their daughters avoid the procedure. These points in no way condone it, but rather are useful in considering the reasons why this practice has survived as long as it has and why people, women in particular, could ever have come to accept it. Female genital mutilation is considered grounds for an asylum application, but Peter O’Mahonoy of the Irish Refugee Council contends that it is notoriously difficult to secure refugee status on those grounds alone. The flaw in the policy is as barbaric as the act of genital mutilation itself and it cannot be accepted that this is in any way an exaggeration or amplification of the facts. To refuse a woman fleeing FGM asylum is to condemn that woman and any female children she may have to that fate, not inadvertently, but directly.Ms Izbekhai was jailed in Mountjoy Prison earlier this month for ignoring a deportation order which would, she contends, have condemned her two young daughters (five and three) to this practice. She is reported to have broken down several times in court while explaining to the judge that she had gone into hiding because she feared the genital mutilation they would face if sent back to Africa. She said, after having explained this: “I am afraid for my children”. She was granted conditional release pending a challenge to the deportation order, but ordered to surrender herself to Gardai within one hour should she be refused leave to challenge that order. Most women who apply for asylum on those grounds would do so, I suspect, for the sake of their young daughters, rather than for themselves who most likely have already undergone the procedure. A doctor could confirm whether this was so in about two seconds flat (as could any woman, and most men with half a wit) and any mother of accompanying female children who is proven to have undergone this ‘surgery’ herself ought to be allowed automatic asylum. It is the only humane response to a situation which is inhumane by its very nature. On the subject of asylum seekers though, the laws of the land wherein a person resides must be the laws that person abides by and no special concessions should be made for people who break those laws based on their cultural background. Mutilating people is illegal in Ireland, thank God, and girls and women should not and must not be subjected to this barbaric treatment here, regardless where or what sort of cultural environment their parents hail from.

By the way, I forget who said so, but it is in no way uncommon for a woman to have her clitorus head cut off in this practice. It is all to common, from what I've read.The procedure is often carried out to conform to a tradition which sees it as necessary and even desirable to eliminate a womans sexual response, and in the cultures where FGM is carried out for those reasons clitoridectomy is often regarded as essential to achieving that aim.

Thank you for getting this thread back on topic. That was a interesting story.

Here's a link to the different forms of FGM.

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html

There's a Nigerian M.D. is South Carolina who defends the practice of "female circumcision". Amazing.The link I posted above also has imformation on the different types of FGM, plus some other links and references at the bottom.Other than being upset about the injustice of it, is there anything we can do to help?

Steve, if you don't think this thread has anything to be added to it, then why do you keep posting on it?Please, if you don't have anything relevant to add, then don't add it.

Jeeeeeez, you're still in a foul mood. You've misinterpreted my post, which was meant to be taken literally. Chill out, dude.

In reply to:

---

Treating a slave good or bad is just as important (according to the Bible) as treating anybody else good or bad. Seems in this regard that the Bible treats slaves as equals. We live in a society today that has deamed it unacceptable to have a social class defined as "slave".

...and...

I suppose I should add, for the sake of clarity, that the Bible is focussed on spiritual issues. This would seem to indicate that a person's social status is not an issue when it comes to the applicability of the Bible.

---

This is a very sensible take on the Bible. I agree with it.

Treating a slave good or bad is just as important (according to the Bible) as treating anybody else good or bad.What does it mean to treat a slave "good"?> Seems in this regard that the Bible treats slaves as equals.What does it mean to teat a slave as equal? Is that not a self-contradiction?As practiced, slavery was an ugly institution in America, and just as bad in other parts of the world. Most Americans have not idea how truly vile it was. Almost all the slave holders were Christians, some of whom considered themselves, "good Christians."If God had compassion, why didn't he emphasize the wrongfulness of slavery? Or was it only a problem when Jews were enslaved, rather than black people?It's the same deal with the genocide in Darfur, and like wise for female genital mutilation in North Africa. There are a few odd groups who are trying to do something about it, including some Christian groups. But by and large, no one gives a damn, including all the religious hypocrites among us.

This is an excellent article overall Starfish. Thanks for bringing it here. I have a couple of comments about it. In reply to: Use of the same instrument on several girls without sterilization can cause the spread of HIV. I absolutely hate when a sensible article departs the sensible focus and takes a walk on the wild side by attempting a long-shot connection between the writer's point and a current hot-button issue. HIV is a hot-button issue, but the number of bad things that can be spread this way boggles the mind. As this is primarily done to prepubescent girls the likelihood of spreading an STD is low compared to the risks of other things. Mentioning only the hot-button disease tells me this is an attempt to be a bit manipulative, by Amnesty International in this case. In reply to: indeed one of the reasons put forth by advocates of the practice is that it discourages excessive masturbation and that a mutilated woman is far less likely to be unfaithful to her husband. Indeed, I think this is the primary reason this practice was started. That it has become a cultural practice defended by even its victims in many areas is undeniable, but its origin is most likely in reducing the likelihood of infidelity. The only real connection between FGM and religion is that they both address the issue of fidelity, but that's it. Anything else is a stretch beyond the rational in my view, whether it's proponents of a particular religion adopting it or accusing religious beliefs of causing it.I join the consensus here in saying that I feel the practice is horrible. As a father of daughters I would regard such mutilation as reason to beat the crap out of someone. It's like cutting out someone's tongue so they can't curse. I don't like cursing, but that isn't a good way to stop it.

In reply to: > Treating a slave good or bad is just as important (according to the Bible) as treating anybody else good or bad.<What does it mean to treat a slave "good"?> Seems in this regard that the Bible treats slaves as equals.<What does it mean to teat a slave as equal? Is that not a self-contradiction? Cutting it up in that fashion DOES make it hard to understand. I recommend you read the original post, which I found to be quite clear and easy to comprehend.

You said, "This is a very sensible take on the Bible. I agree with it."What thor said makes very little sense, unless you have a new definition for "good" and "equal".The important point is that most of the world's population describes itself as religious, yet most of the world doesn't give a damn about the atrocities that go on. How is it that Islamic nations have nothing to say about the genocide against Muslims in Sudan? Or about the FGM that goes on in various Islamic regions of North Africa, some of which the U.S. has friendly relations with?When 10,000 people died in Kosovo, the U.S. went in. I guess it helps to be white.---------------------There's an article in the Oct. 1995 issue of Atlantic Monthly by Linda Burstyn, "Female Circumcision Comes to America", that shows that the FGM problem in the U.S. is not new.Fauziya Kasinga wrote about her experience in her book, Do They Hear You When You Cry?. She was from Togo, and came to the U.S. in the mid-90's, seeking asylum because was going to be forced to have her genitals mutilated. She was held in detention for 16 months, until she won her case in federal court. It's just amazing what she had to go through, when a Cuban can just step onto the beach near where I live and be home free.

"HIV is a hot-button issue, but the number of bad things that can be spread this way boggles the mind. As this is primarily done to prepubescent girls the likelihood of spreading an STD is low compared to the risks of other things. Mentioning only the hot-button disease tells me this is an attempt to be a bit manipulative, by Amnesty International in this case"I wouldn’t agree Lanky, at least not thoroughly; I would have some reservations about your point of view here, for a couple of different reasons:Firstly, Amnesty International do go on to say "More commonly , the chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours of the nerve which can result from clitoridectomy and excision cause discomfort and extreme pain. FGM can have even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids, which are raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars and dermoid cysts. So I do think that they acknowledge there are many more widespread problems than the risk of HIV transmission alone, and also they note "chronic infections", which I presume would also cover other STD's and blood-borne viruses, such as hep C etc.I think too that to consider the possible spread of HIV in this manner could not quite be considered scare mongering, because the use of the same implement on prepubescent girls in underdeveloped areas of the world is really not the same thing (most particularly in case of Africa) as it would be were the same practice taking place among the children of the Western world. The prepubescent stage of life here assumes the absence of such diseases, but that is, unfortunately, simply not the case in a lot of these countries, and the appallingly high rate of children actually born with the HIV virus in Africa would make the practice of widespread use of unsterilised utensils dangerous to my mind."It's like cutting out someone's tongue so they can't curse. I don't like cursing, but that isn't a good way to stop it"That is an excellent comparison; it's a pity I didn’t think of it myself, it might have earned me a few extra points, lol!

Thanks for the link. I read that and it supports everything I have already discovered about this practice. I'd like to point out that the very first statement that report makes in describing the different types of FGM was this:'In the commonest form of this procedure the clitoris is held between the thumb and index finger, pulled out and amputated with one stroke of a sharp object'I think if people are duped into believing that this procedure simply involves the removal of the clitoral hood or the labia minora (or both) they will logically deduce that it is the female equivalent of male circumcision, which is simply (and regrettably) not the case.

Perhaps Lanky isn't familiar with statistics on HIV infection in Northern Africa, or it's modes of transmission.

According to UNAIDS' (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) 2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic, there were 24.5 million Sub-Saharans living with HIV, including 2 million children.

I don't know how easily the HIV virus is spread with a the dirty razor that is often used for the FGM procedure, but tissue trauma and chronic bacterial infection makes it much easier for the HIV virus to infect a woman.

Many women undergo the procedure as adolescents, when they're going to be married off, as was the case with Fauziya Kasinga, mentioned above.

BTW, the analogy with cutting out the tongue was a good one.

At one point, when it was clear that the U.S.'s justification for going to war Iraq was (at best) mistaken, Bush and his wife justified the invasion as a way to support the interests and aspirations of women. There may have been some truth to that in Afghanistan, but when you look at the U.S.'s record in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Sub-Saharan Africa, it's not hard to realize that Bush et al are completely full of crap.

You can argue that FGM is a cultural phenomenon and not a religious one, and that the Koran doesn't justify it (although there are Muslims who will dispute that), but what a lot of people get from a fundaments interpretation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that women are lesser beings than men are. It sets the zeitgeist so that, for some people, things like FGM is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, is good.

So much for religion as a moral force.

I'm sure Lanky is fully well aware of the situation re AIDS/HIV in Africa, as most Westerners are; his point was that it is not helpful for Amnesty International to focus on the transmission of the HIV virus in particular when there are other, more likely diseases and infections which can be spread in this way and many health risks that do not involve STD’s at all. I agree there is some sense in his view, as it happens.As for your other points, they are worthy of comment, but I'll steer clear of responding to them if you dont mind, otherwise we'll end up knee-deep in another discussion involving either religion or the US-lead war in Iraq. I'd like to see this thread stay on topic as the subject interests me; I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here voicing ridiculous assertions, though I very much doubt the likelihood of that development!

I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here...Don't hold your breath for that to happen. I'm only aware of the rare person from an area where FGM is practiced who ever posts to this site, and the person who does is more likely to be from an urban area, where FGM is not as common.You can analyze FGM philopophically as much as you like. It's not unusual in the evolution of human culture. Most everyone in the West agrees that it's bad. I'm sure we'd be analyzing throwing virgin girls into volcanoes if we were on line a few hundred years ago. The problem is not likely to be fixed any time soon internally, where it is practiced. The question is what forces can be brought to bear to change it?According to Bush, the West is at war with "radical Islam". Is abuse of women and children another front of the war?

"Don't hold your breath for that to happen"Steve, you have the irritating habit of dissecting a person’s sentence and presenting only a portion of it in a deliberate attempt to take that persons words out of context; I have mentioned this to you before now. I trained in journalism Steve, which means I was actually educated in how to do this; in any case, I really don’t think it would take a third level education to spot that elementary manoeuvre.I would hardly likely ‘hold my breath’ for the arrival of an occurrence which, as I'd said, I would very much doubt the development of!"According to Bush, the West is at war with "radical Islam". Is abuse of women and children another front of the war?"You should add that question to any of the recent threads re religion or war. Or start a new thread in the exact area of this subject that interests you, if you like. I am not going to be drawn on the subject; I have no interest in discussing it, as I've told you.

Man, you're reading way too much into that; no need to roll out your resume. There was no personal intent. Here it is sans metaphor: No one will post here in support of FGM.

If you don't want to discuss something, then you are free not to reply. Not every reply to you warrants a reply from you.

In my opinion, culture, religion, and politics can't be dissected out of the discussion, or we're just masturbating each other, saying, "Gee, isn't that terrible! How could they?"