Almost 500 cases of female genital mutilation identified in just one month in England

obplayer · 27-01-2015 1:00am

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I actually staunchly object to male genital mutilation being carried out on a baby or a young boy against his will - it's ****ing barbaric IMO.
There are grown men (not just Jewish men) who choose it though, whether rightly or wrongly. I don't agree with them doing so, but they still do choose to. Catholic lads in Ireland like, not the Upper East Side or Tel Aviv.

The "what about men" argument in this regard is that discussions about genital mutilation should be non gender specific, which is just bizarre. There are differences between the two.
Nothing wrong with a discussion about the two together IMO, but nothing wrong with a discussion about only FGM or only MGM. To see that as gender discrimination is just cracked.

As a man I have to say that I completely accept that FGM is a vastly more severe procedure and deserving of first attention.

reprise · 27-01-2015 1:03am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed. We are also perfectly free to point out that the OP has an agenda and is obsessesed with pointing out any and all flaws of muslims and immigrants.

And you don't have an unholy obsession or an agenda with LGBT?

Who are you to dictate or moralise on what people have an interest in?

Annasopra · 27-01-2015 1:03am

reprise wrote: »

And you don't have an unholy obsession or an agenda with LGBT?

Who are you to dictate what people have an interest in?

Im not dictating anything.

bodice ripper · 27-01-2015 1:03am

reprise wrote: »

And he's free to say you've a massive chip on your shoulder. Riveting.

Why have I got a chip on my shoulder?

reprise · 27-01-2015 1:06am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Im not dictating anything.

Then join in and stop derailing the thread.

bodice ripper wrote: »

Why have I got a chip on my shoulder?

I'm not your shrink.

JaseBelleVie · 27-01-2015 1:07am

Yes, routine infant circumcision performed on baby boys and young boys is awful. But the fact of the matter is that a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis function pretty much the same way. There are slight differences, but circumcised guys experience sexual pleasure and can urinate without difficulty, just as uncircumcised guys can.

Women who have had FGM inflicted upon them are mutilated and their sexual functionality and urinary functions are completely, deliberately and detrimentally affected permanently.

I am vehemently opposed to routine/cultural male circumcision (I even went to great lengths personally to avoid getting a circumcision for a medical ailment), but FGM is far more serious and is in need of far more direct action than male circumcision.

bodice ripper · 27-01-2015 1:07am

reprise wrote: »

Then join in and stop derailing the thread.

I'm not your shrink.

So, not going to back it up?

Wibbs · 27-01-2015 1:08am

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Rob, do you accept FGM has nothing to do with Islam?

Well that's a complex area. It is mentioned in some Islamic texts, specifically among the various stories of the life of Muhammed. In it he doesn't ban the practice, but does say not to take too much away. Nice of him. It was quite the thing among what the Greeks and Romans would have seen as "barbarians". The reason Christians alone among the Abrahamic faiths don't have it as a given is because the Greco Roman world considered it beyond the Pale and only for primitives. It's also why Christians can eat lovely lovely bacon.

RonanP77 wrote: »

What's the reason for FGM or the logic behind it ? Is it meant to make them less appealing or take the fun out of things for them?

Like male circumcision it's another a bronze age blood sacrifice/rite to a bronze age god. In the Jewish faith it's a covenant with their god, to mark them as separate culturally. Both got traction back in the day and were codified later and became ingrained in various societies. Both for the exact same reasons and excuses. Indeed even today the notion that the male form protects against HIV infection is also used as an excuse/reason for the female form as statistically women who have suffered FGM are less at risk from HIV. Both are mostly utter bollocks statistically BTW. The male form does reduce HIV transmission to some degree, mainly because the head of the penis constantly exposed becomes toughened and grows a layer of keratinised skin which makes it harder for the virus to penetrate. Agin that is the fact that the US of A with a majority of mutilated men has a far higher incidence of HIV than say Sweden where the practice is applied to a tiny minority.

Wibbs · 27-01-2015 1:16am

obplayer wrote: »

As a man I have to say that I completely accept that FGM is a vastly more severe procedure and deserving of first attention.

OK, well then would you be OK with the lesser forms of FGM which are analogous to the male form? IE removal of the clitoral hood. Can you imagine the uproar if a culture had 80% of baby girls clitoral prepuces removed? And if it was medically supported and backed by medical insurance and the like?

The fact is that this stuff is incredibly culturally based and biased. EG Oprah Winfrey came out as a staunch advocate for banning FGM, yet in another episode happily touted oul wan skin cream that had ingredients based on discarded baby boys foreskins. Her culture sees MGM as part and parcel of the culture and not such an issue, but FGM is done by the barbarians, the "fuzzy wuzzies" out there(irony of ironies). To those cultures that practice it they see it as a requirement of their culture, just like many in the US(though it's slowly changing) see the male version as equally required. And again for the exact same reasons; religion, his/her father/mother had it done, the opposite sex prefer it, it reduces over sexuality and masturbation, it looks "better", it's "our" culture.

Raging_Ninja · 27-01-2015 1:37am

For male circumcision, please google 'phimosis' and look at the images.

Wibbs · 27-01-2015 1:43am

Phimosis is a medical condition and a minority one at that. No one is suggesting that medical intervention is off the books in such a circumstance. That's got eff all to do with routine MGM. IT would be akin to removing the majority of girl's breast tissue in childhood to stave off breast cancer. And what's more, many cases of said condition can be resolved without lopping of a large part of the penile tissue that is the usual go to route, even among western doctors that should know better. For example. Use of steroid cream another option for the milder cases.

obplayer · 27-01-2015 1:43am

Wibbs wrote: »

OK, well then would you be OK with the lesser forms of FGM which are analogous to the male form? IE removal of the clitoral hood. Can you imagine the uproar if a culture had 80% of baby girls clitoral prepuces removed? And if it was medically supported and backed by medical insurance and the like?

The fact is that this stuff is incredibly culturally based and biased. EG Oprah Winfrey came out as a staunch advocate for banning FGM, yet in another episode happily touted oul wan skin cream that had ingredients based on discarded baby boys foreskins. Her culture sees MGM as part and parcel of the culture and not such an issue, but FGM is done by the barbarians, the "fuzzy wuzzies" out there(irony of ironies). To those cultures that practice it they see it as a requirement of their culture, just like many in the US(though it's slowly changing) see the male version as equally required. And again for the exact same reasons; religion, his/her father/mother had it done, the opposite sex prefer it, it reduces over sexuality and masturbation, it looks "better", it's "our" culture.

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.
That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent, and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

Wibbs · 27-01-2015 1:49am

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big cases of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.

Actually the jury is still way out on that one and condoms have a much higher protective function, as does the HPV vaccine.

That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent,

Agreed.

and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

Again the least form of FGM is analogous to male circumcision. How come one is somehow beyond the Pale at all times and the other isn't? Again it's cultural and until it's seen in that vein and that angle is explored and countered, FGM will continue. Like I said for say an American woman to come out against the practice is laudable, but the same American woman might be resolute in her insistence that her newborn boy is mutilated and that circle is hard to square.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-01-2015 1:50am

I don't think that saying that you find FGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. up to including the stuff venus in furs described) more objectionable than MGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. limited to removal of foreskin and most often carried out in hospital) should at all imply that you're OK with MGM or would/should be ok with milder FGM. The same cultural acceptability of MGM that you're on about means that in practical terms the two practices are apples and oranges. They're both horrible, but imo they're largely separate causes, at least in a western European or U.S context

obplayer · 27-01-2015 1:57am

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the jury is still way out on that one and condoms have a much higher protective function, as does the HPV vaccine.

Agreed. Again the least form of FGM is analogous to male circumcision. How come one is somehow beyond the Pale at all times and the other isn't? Again it's cultural and until it's seen in that vein and that angle is explored and countered, FGM will continue. Like I said for say an American woman to come out against the practice is laudable, but the same American woman might be resolute in her insistence that her newborn boy is mutilated and that circle is hard to square.

The jury is not out and has not been for at least 25 years.
Yes condoms have a higher protection but in their absence the male being circumcised helps. The HPV vaccine has only become available recently. Yes they are both culturally driven practices but FGM is much, much worse. If you are faced with two wrongs, one of which is manifestly worse than the other which do you turn your resources against? Anyway this is a thread about FGM, if you want to start one about MGM I will debate you there.

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 10:44am

i think islam may indeed not be the main culprit for once...though i am pretty sure there may well be a connection, at least in the acceptance of the practice...i remember reading that over 90% of egyptian women are circumcised nowadays...now i would like to know whether that was also the case before muslims conquered and islamicized the country...do we have good sources on the history of fgm?
and while we are talking about mutilation, i recommend checking out male circumcision as practiced in yemen or among australian aborigines for example...shocking stuff as well...

conorhal · 27-01-2015 10:54am

My only question is, if 500 cases have been detected, why are there not 500 sets of parents sitting in police holding cells waiting to be questioned?
If 500 children from any other comunity had a hot Iron held to their genitals or their nose sliced off by their parents they certiantly would be. People can dance around the issue all they like, but that figure suggest that the authorities are simply ignoring child abuse. End of story. Rotherham 2.0

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 10:55am

Venus In Furs wrote: »

[...]
The vagina is sewn up apart from a tiny opening and the clitoris damaged so as not to yield pleasure. The "tightening" up is to make things more pleasurable for the man while simultaneously less pleasurable for the woman.
Then there's childbirth, and non stop problems urinating. The practice is often carried out in filthy conditions (and, it has to be said, often carried out by, and staunchly endorsed by, women).
[...]

remember reading about that and seeing pictures of it in my dad’s - he is a urologist - specialist books...shocking stuff indeed...

goose2005 · 27-01-2015 11:40am

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Theres utterly no comparison whatsoever. One is a valid medical procedure, the other is mysoginistic barbarism.

There is no reason whatsoever for circumcision. There are some spurious arguments that it may make STDs less likely - but the same is true of FGM. The same is true of

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If that's so it's a pity. I think male circumcision is pointless except in cases of medical need but there really is no comparison to the long-term damage and misery caused by FGM.

Only because comparison tends to involve the most extreme cases of FGM vs. the least extreme examples of male circumcision. In many cultures circumcision is carried out without sterile instruments and mutilation/death happen all the time.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/male-and-female-circumcision-are-equally-wrong/

jank · 27-01-2015 12:23pm

So, why are the parents not in court facing prosecution? Or would that be too un-PC?

BeerWolf · 27-01-2015 1:12pm

I'm baffled as to WHY the parents of girls that underwent FGM aren't being prosecuted ... ?

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 1:33pm

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.
That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent, and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

can the supposed link between male circumcision and any form of cancer (cervical or penis) be seen as proven beyond doubt by now? i used to think of it as just a theory, but i might not be up-to-date...what proof is there? any good scientific studies with unambiguous results? or do fully circumcised countries like israel have significantly fewer such cancer cases in the age groups in question? would be interesting to know...

qt3.14 · 27-01-2015 1:40pm

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.

There's potential medical benefit to FGM too.

General population study in Tanzania found in "Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17320788

Study on Senegalese prostitutes found that those who had had fgm performed had a "significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755

Doesn't make FGM any less of a barbaric practise. Mutilating any infant, for non present threat medical reasons, should be outlawed.

Grayson · 27-01-2015 1:42pm

obplayer wrote: »

The jury is not out and has not been for at least 25 years.
Yes condoms have a higher protection but in their absence the male being circumcised helps. The HPV vaccine has only become available recently. Yes they are both culturally driven practices but FGM is much, much worse. If you are faced with two wrongs, one of which is manifestly worse than the other which do you turn your resources against? Anyway this is a thread about FGM, if you want to start one about MGM I will debate you there.

It still involves mutilating the genitals of little boys. can you honestly imagine anyone excusing FGM because it provides a minimal health benefit?

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 2:02pm

porsche959 wrote: »

Y[...]As I've asked you before, how come nothing from you on the Roman Catholic Church or British establishment child abuse scandals?

the difference is that fgm and mgm are the norm in certain cultural and religious communities, and none of them originate from europe...while child abuse of any kind has never been more than a number of cases in the western world...i’d wager over 99% of catholic priests in europe have never touched an altar boy...

o1s1n · 27-01-2015 3:16pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

...i’d wager over 99% of catholic priests in europe have never touched an altar boy...

And where are you getting this statistic from?

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 3:19pm

o1s1n wrote: »

And where are you getting this statistic from?

just my own guess...have you seen serious statistics on that?

spikeS · 27-01-2015 3:23pm

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

conorhal · 27-01-2015 3:33pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

Or a compromise deal perhaps? How about, you can slice off your daughters clitoris with a razorblade, but if she feels resentful about it later in life she's entitled cut the head off your penis with the same?

shalalala · 27-01-2015 3:52pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

Political correctness gone insane. I cannot even begin to comprehend how you think this is logical.

There was a channel 4documentary about FGM about a year ago. 4OD it and get yourself educated.

Wibbs · 27-01-2015 3:56pm

Heavenly Mammoth Earphone wrote: »

I don't think that saying that you find FGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. up to including the stuff venus in furs described) more objectionable than MGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. limited to removal of foreskin and most often carried out in hospital) should at all imply that you're OK with MGM or would/should be ok with milder FGM. The same cultural acceptability of MGM that you're on about means that in practical terms the two practices are apples and oranges. They're both horrible, but imo they're largely separate causes, at least in a western European or U.S context

Hang on, so because one form is more culturally acceptable that means it's somehow lesser, even OK in a cultural context? Many people in those cultures that practice FGM would be in agreement with you, including the women who have been mutilated. That's the thing, just as circumcised men in cultures like the US are more usually insistent that their own sons are surgically altered at birth, circumcised women in those cultures insist on the same for their daughters. It's the women who perform the "surgery" in the majority of cases. As one Muslim Imam lad in Tanzania IIRC found out. He was dead set against the practice and was pointing out that it is not a requirement of Islam and the men in the culture were coming around, but headway with the women was much more difficult. Cultural biases and pressure run strong.

It really boils down to this; FGM of any form takes away the right to the bodily integrity of women and removes part of their genitals erogenous tissue and that is wrong. MGM takes away the right to bodily integrity of men and removes part of their genital's erogenous tissue and that is wrong. Severity between the practices is certainly a part of it, but both remove the right to bodily integrity entirely because of cultural reasons and as such both are equally and objectively wrong. To dismiss one type as not culturally relevant is subjective cultural bias.

Grayson · 27-01-2015 4:14pm

conorhal wrote: »

Or a compromise deal perhaps? How about, you can slice off your daughters clitoris with a razorblade, but if she feels resentful about it later in life she's entitled cut the head off your penis with the same?

You just made me cross my legs.

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

It's not a Muslim thing. It's not mentioned in the Koran and there are no Muslim councils that encourage it.
A lot of Muslims do it but so to a lot of Christians. And as Wibbs points out, in a lot of these cultures it's ironically the women who do it. Women who were circumcised want the same for their children. A lot of them believe it make them more hygienic.

qt3.14 · 27-01-2015 4:30pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Hang on, so because one form is more culturally acceptable that means it's somehow lesser, even OK in a cultural context? Many people in those cultures that practice FGM would be in agreement with you, including the women who have been mutilated. That's the thing, just as circumcised men in cultures like the US are more usually insistent that their own sons are surgically altered at birth, circumcised women in those cultures insist on the same for their daughters. It's the women who perform the "surgery" in the majority of cases. As one Muslim Imam lad in Tanzania IIRC found out. He was dead set against the practice and was pointing out that it is not a requirement of Islam and the men in the culture were coming around, but headway with the women was much more difficult. Cultural biases and pressure run strong.

It really boils down to this; FGM of any form takes away the right to the bodily integrity of women and removes part of their genitals erogenous tissue and that is wrong. MGM takes away the right to bodily integrity of men and removes part of their genital's erogenous tissue and that is wrong. Severity between the practices is certainly a part of it, but both remove the right to bodily integrity entirely because of cultural reasons and as such both are equally and objectively wrong. To dismiss one type as not culturally relevant is subjective cultural bias.

Add to that the fact that mgm in the west isn't always the clinical process many imagine. In the orthodox jewish community there's a high rate of hep infection in infant males because of the way circumcision is performed. Again though, that gets a get out of jail free because of muh cultural context!

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 4:32pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, [...]

you would not mind young girls getting forcibly held down, cut up and mutilated in a horrible way? in your neighborhood? just for the sake of not interfering with another culture?

MrPudding · 27-01-2015 4:36pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

You know it actually is ok to say something is wrong, even if it is someone's culture...? And this is clearly wrong. If it is their culture, then their culture is wrong.

MrP

crockholm · 27-01-2015 4:44pm

A poster starts a thread about a large number of Girls being exposed to an illegal and dangerous practice and our resident spawn of "old hippy" just complain about Crocodile tears from the guy who starts it. Wonderful.

Indeed,some of AH better known contributers only contribution to this thread is to thank posts which attack the OP.

Back on topic-This is now a test of how seriously the authorities are going to deal with FGM.

Akrasia · 27-01-2015 4:45pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

F*ck that sh1t!

Let adult women volunteer to cut bits off themselves as much as they like. But FGM is the mutilation of children. No 'respect for culture' should allow this practice.

jimgoose · 27-01-2015 4:58pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

C'mere, FGM is not the buffalo and the people who practice it are not the Sioux. Mutilating children in the name of "culture" is objectively wrong and that's the end of it.

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 5:13pm

crockholm wrote: »

[...]This is now a test of how seriously the authorities are going to deal with FGM.

yup, and with that also a test of how far down the drain europe already is...

JaseBelleVie · 27-01-2015 5:32pm

shalalala wrote: »

There was a channel 4documentary about FGM about a year ago. 4OD it and get yourself educated.

"The Cruel Cut" it was called. I remember watching it when it was on TV. It is horrendous watching, but should nearly be required watching for everyone.

Also, the Penn & Teller: BULLSH*T! episode surrounding Circumcision (of boys) should also be required viewing.

Just shows how horrible and barbaric both of these "operations" are.

If you are an adult and want these things done to you. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Be happy.

But when adults inflict these mutilations on children. Nope. No. No way. F*ck that. Religion or culture be damned. Do not mutilate your children's genitals, for f*ck sake!

DoYouEvenLift · 27-01-2015 5:54pm

Lol @ infant genital mutilation still occurring in the Western world, when will religion just die.

JaseBelleVie · 27-01-2015 6:01pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol @ infant genital mutilation still occurring in the Western world, when will religion just die.

Sad part is, it's not just religion. It's deeply cultural too.

The United States, Canada, South Korea, Australia. Just off the top of my head, but there are 4 Western nations where the vast majority of men are circumcised and routine infant circumcision takes place a lot. Granted, the rates in Canada and in particular Australia have fallen dramatically, but the majority of adult men in both of these countries are circumcised. Having been done at birth.

In South Korea, it is a cultural phenomenon brought in by the American influence on the country following the Korean War. In South Korea, circumcision is performed on teenage/pre-teen boys as a rite of passage, rather than at birth.

But the biggest one amongst them is the USA. It is the USA that leads the charge in terms of "normalising" circumcision in the Western world. And the vast majority of circumcisions in the USA are infant ones and are done for no good reason other than the cultural ones.

I find it sickening, to be honest.

Potatoeman · 27-01-2015 6:30pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Hang on, so because one form is more culturally acceptable that means it's somehow lesser, even OK in a cultural context? Many people in those cultures that practice FGM would be in agreement with you, including the women who have been mutilated. That's the thing, just as circumcised men in cultures like the US are more usually insistent that their own sons are surgically altered at birth, circumcised women in those cultures insist on the same for their daughters. It's the women who perform the "surgery" in the majority of cases. As one Muslim Imam lad in Tanzania IIRC found out. He was dead set against the practice and was pointing out that it is not a requirement of Islam and the men in the culture were coming around, but headway with the women was much more difficult. Cultural biases and pressure run strong.

It really boils down to this; FGM of any form takes away the right to the bodily integrity of women and removes part of their genitals erogenous tissue and that is wrong. MGM takes away the right to bodily integrity of men and removes part of their genital's erogenous tissue and that is wrong. Severity between the practices is certainly a part of it, but both remove the right to bodily integrity entirely because of cultural reasons and as such both are equally and objectively wrong. To dismiss one type as not culturally relevant is subjective cultural bias.

That's really the only way you can argue this point across cultures. It's reduced to ethics where preforming an unnecessary medical procedure on a child without consent is unethical no matter the cultural norms. Western cultures should take a hard look at their own motivations and justifications for 'cultural' procedures.

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 7:04pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol @ infant genital mutilation still occurring in the Western world, when will religion just die.

what a daft post

Wurzelbert · 27-01-2015 7:20pm

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

[...]
But the biggest one amongst them is the USA. It is the USA that leads the charge in terms of "normalising" circumcision in the Western world. And the vast majority of circumcisions in the USA are infant ones and are done for no good reason other than the cultural ones.

I find it sickening, to be honest.

me too...i remember reading circumcision is in decline among the non-jewish and non-muslim population in the us nowadays...though the american circumcision industry would certainly do everything to stop that trend...

DoYouEvenLift · 27-01-2015 7:27pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

what a daft post

Thank you.

DeadHand · 27-01-2015 7:56pm

conorhal wrote: »

My only question is, if 500 cases have been detected, why are there not 500 sets of parents sitting in police holding cells waiting to be questioned?
If 500 children from any other comunity had a hot Iron held to their genitals or their nose sliced off by their parents they certiantly would be. People can dance around the issue all they like, but that figure suggest that the authorities are simply ignoring child abuse. End of story. Rotherham 2.0

Hard to argue with this grim assessment.

Once again, the paralysing, poisonous political correctness that is so deeply ingrained in English officialdom conspires to allow evil in that country. Once again, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who are sacrificed at the altar of "diversity" and "race relations".

The fact is, this is an imported evil. It came to Britain with immigration.

As we saw on this very thread with the immediate, personalised attempts to vilify and shout down the OP, there is a significant body of left-leaning people here and elsewhere who believe ethnic minorities should be above criticism and that anyone highlighting barbarity like this is some kind of bigot.

This is dishonest and helps no-one.

Funny the things mainstream feminism gets sore over. The great enemy today is Page 3. On FGM among ethnic minorities in Britain? Deafening silence.

Of course, if FGM was something being forced on children by mostly white, indigenous men or anyone other than the pet minorities of the left, Harriet Harman and co would be out manning (personing?) the barricades.

As it is, it seems the exposure of pert boobs is a greater societal ill than the mutilation of baby girls.

DeadHand · 27-01-2015 8:06pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Thank you.

There's a button for that, you know.

Egginacup · 27-01-2015 8:34pm

obplayer wrote: »

Then would you take mine? I have never started a thread on Muslims or indeed Brown Skinned People but I still find FGM to be a vile, evil practice and am stunned that it appears to be so prevalent in Britain.

Shouldn't Britain be bombed or sanctioned then?

bodice ripper · 27-01-2015 8:50pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Hard to argue with this grim assessment.

Once again, the paralysing, poisonous political correctness that is so deeply ingrained in English officialdom conspires to allow evil in that country. Once again, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who are sacrificed at the altar of "diversity" and "race relations".

The fact is, this is an imported evil. It came to Britain with immigration.

As we saw on this very thread with the immediate, personalised attempts to vilify and shout down the OP, there is a significant body of left-leaning people here and elsewhere who believe ethnic minorities should be above criticism and that anyone highlighting barbarity like this is some kind of bigot.

This is dishonest and helps no-one.

Funny the things mainstream feminism gets sore over. The great enemy today is Page 3. On FGM among ethnic minorities in Britain? Deafening silence.

Of course, if FGM was something being forced on children by mostly white, indigenous men or anyone other than the pet minorities of the left, Harriet Harman and co would be out manning (personing?) the barricades.

As it is, it seems the exposure of pert boobs is a greater societal ill than the mutilation of baby girls.

I never said anything like that. I would be happy to see people locked up for engaging in this practice. I just amn't stupid enough to believe RobYourBuilder gives a **** outside of his little sphere of interest.

Almost 500 cases of female genital mutilation identified in just one month in England

Comments