nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New responsibilities?

Sand

Probably everyone is aware of the sadly botched circumcision on the newly born baby in waterford recently which resulted in the childs death. Apparently it was carried out for cultural reasons, the childs parents being Nigerian Muslims. The state carries out circumcision for cultural reasons but Ive heard ( perhaps incorrectly ) that Waterford Regional only carries them out on medical grounds and the cost of going to Dublin to have it done were prohibitive hence the DIY job.

Im not posting about immigration policy, or illegal immigrants, or why people who think illegal immigration is illegal are nazis. Im just curious on whether the state medical service should be providing cultural services such as circumcision? Its not been a major issue before ( Has Ireland ever had a significant Jewish population? ) but obviously there are more and more people in Ireland with various cultural requirements.

Its fairly certain the kid would have lived if a qualified doctor had been doing the job in a hospital or clinic. So everyones initial reaction is if it saves lives let the state do it right rather than calling in some shyster which is what appears to have happened. But then the division between church and state - which has never been satisfactorily undisputed in Ireland at the best of times - is further weakened surely? And whilst male circumcision is acceptable to the majority of people, female circumcision isnt - being regarded variously as unsafe and sexist from what I gather. Where does the state draw the line, when certain cultures do believe in female circumcision - does the state judge which culture is more worthy? If we perform the circumcision to prevent tragedies such as happened in Waterford then surely the state will have to perform female circumcisions as well regardless of their stance on the matter to prevent similarly botched jobs.

Its an interesting problem that Ive not come close to deciding on. If you perform them to do it safely then you cant refuse to perform some ritual ( how about those rings they use to stretch necks in some cultures? ) for fear of driving it underground - in short blackmail.

If you decide to perform some and not others based on what your culture believes about other peoples cultural practices then youre not exactly demonstrating equal respect for everyones views - in short branding some cultures primitive or barbaric.

And by getting the state involved in religious/cultural practice youre undermining one of the principles of good government - I know Ireland never held to it but lets at least aim high.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Victor

I presume any possible charges would be somewhere between reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

Female "circumcision" is more often referred to as Female Genital Mutilation as the intention is to remove more that flesh / skin.

However, body modification is not only legal in this country, it is also unregulated.

> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=358

I disagree with circumcision of babies, save in medical necessity, but I'm not sure how we can stop it - just like we can't stop Jaa-sin-taaa getting 4 year old Anto's ear pierced.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
just like we can't stop Jaa-sin-taaa getting 4 year old Anto's ear pierced.

Wow. Waited till he was 4! I've seen babies in nappies with ear-rings. I felt like smacking the parents upside the head.....or better yet....having them tied down and a painful piercing given to them, in a location of my choosiing[/i] without any choice on their part.

Personally - in the case Sand mentioned - I would hold the state no more responsible for not providing free care here, then they are responsible for a bank-robber killing someone because he had to steal money because the state didn't hand him a wad of cash.

And like the bank robber, I'd hold those who performed the action culpable. As Victor said...its at least reckless endangerment.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand

And whilst male circumcision is acceptable to the majority of people, female circumcision isnt - being regarded variously as unsafe and sexist from what I gather. Where does the state draw the line, when certain cultures do believe in female circumcision - does the state judge which culture is more worthy? If we perform the circumcision to prevent tragedies such as happened in Waterford then surely the state will have to perform female circumcisions as well regardless of their stance on the matter to prevent similarly botched jobs.

The first thing I thought of when I heard certain comments in the media about the issue was this. I'm all for respecting other cultures, but some things are just too much. Non-Muslims must repect tradition and regulations in Muslim countries, so I won't apologise for not wanting to provide unnecessary medical procedures here on the grounds of culture.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

simu

I won't apologise for not wanting to provide unnecessary medical procedures here on the grounds of culture.

I would agree but the problem is that in many ppl's heads the idea that it is the right thing for male infants to be circumcised is so deeply-anchored that they will make enormous efforts to have this operation carried out whether the State provides assistance or not. Isn't it better for the operations to take place in a hospital or clinic than "underground"?

Female "circumcision" is more often referred to as Female Genital Mutilation as the intention is to remove more that flesh / skin. However, body modification is not only legal in this country, it is also unregulated.

Female mutilation must be stamped out, however as it causes severe damage to the child's future sex life and reproductive facilities. ( compared to circumcised males who may have perfectly normal sex lives).

bonkey

Originally posted by simu
I would agree but the problem is that in many ppl's heads the idea that it is the right thing for male infants to be circumcised is so deeply-anchored that they will make enormous efforts to have this operation carried out whether the State provides assistance or not. Isn't it better for the operations to take place in a hospital or clinic than "underground"?

Now, get rid of the highlighted word "male" in there, and the statement still reads perfectly correctly.

Except for one thing....you followed it up with :

Female mutilation must be stamped out, however ....

So what you are saying is that some practices are ok, and we should offer them in hospitals because otherwise people will just do them anyway on the black market.

Other practices, are not ok, so we should not offer them in hospitals, fircing people to just do them anyway on the black market....but that this is ok because the practices are bad and we should oppose them.

In other words....the people most at risk from serious harm are the ones you want to leave out in the black market for their operations, while the ones less at risk should be kept away from the black market because its more dangerous than hospital.

Either that, or that its ok for the state to stamp out some cultural practices (which would involve shutting down the black market), but others should be embraced and made available through the public health service......which means that (as Sand pointed out) you are deciding what amongst other cultures is acceptable and what is barbaric.

OF course, having branded someone's culture barbaric, you still have to show that under the eyes of the law this person is treated equally.

jc

Sand

Down at the debating society last night a few more points came up.

You can circumcise a child for cultural/religious reasons but as all us god fearing catholics know that child may not hold those cultural or religious beliefs when theyre old enough to A) Speak

Exspress their own views and have them listened to.

Regardless of anything else youd have to hold off on such practices until the kid is legally an adult and ready and able to make their own decision as to what they believe in. Im not sure if there are any medical complications to circumcision once you leave it till 18 or so though. Of course parents who believe in such practices will do handstands all the way to the Dail and failing there will most likely go back to the black market.

And regarding the risk of botched black market jobs, Im leaning to Bonkeys point of view, the government should simply charge *everyone* involved ( parents and all ) with manslaughter to be honest. Whilst this wont save many childrens lives it follows the same principles as we apply to all murders/unlawful killings.

Paddy20

Hmmmm!
God, this is a sore point!, was Christ circumcised?..

Personally, I have an irrational amount of fear,doubt and loathing about male circumcision. While I totally agree that it should be carried out for medical reasons when needed. I am not sure that I have the right to judge the beliefs and practises of other peoples religions, customs, beliefs, ancient cultures and related practises.

For what it is worth. I am very relieved that I was born in a Country where circumcision of male babies is not part of our culture or my religion.

Just my 2cs worth

P.

N.B. [No pun intended in my first sentence, of this post!]

mike65

Its a sad event, my first reaction was that WRH should have had
a service on hand for such surgery but maybe the real job of the health service is to educate those who belive circumcision is culturally nessccary. But of course that could be considered rather imperialist. "We know whats better for them than they do...." etc

Given that such cultural belifs exist its better to provide the operation in hospital conditions than not at all. One suspects this case is the tip of the iceberg.

Mike.

Victor

It would appear from this piece that full circumcision is not medically justifiable.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/1249437?view=Eircomnet

Surgeon calls for ban on hospital circumcisions
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 23rd August, 2003

A Dublin surgeon and male circumcision expert has said that the procedure should be banned in Irish hospitals.

Describing the procedure as "a mutilation", Dr Matt McHugh said he believed circumcision had no medical justification and exposed patients to various risks.

He believed circumcision should "be banned" from all Irish hospitals, despite the cultural requirements of ethnic minorities.

Dr McHugh wrote an influential paper in 1981 in the Irish Medical Journal, advising against the procedure.

Circumcision has previously been carried out for medical purposes to address phimosis, a tightening of the foreskin. However, according to Dr McHugh, a "simple dorsal slit" in the foreskin is sufficient to cure the problem.

"What I'm saying here and now is that circumcision is a procedure that should never be performed," he said. "Basically, circumcision can be a dangerous procedure, it can have complications," he said.

"It involves a general anaesthetic. It's disfiguring and basically you're removing something that shouldn't be removed."

The end of the penis "is exposed to all sorts of trauma", according to Dr McHugh. "The foreskin is not useless, it has a function, and the function is to protect the glans of the penis."

He said he believed cultural reasons, such as in those in the Jewish and Islamic faiths where infant boys are circumcised, were not sufficient.

"I am a medical man, I am not a religious expert, but I find it absolutely incredible circumcision can be initiated for some obscure religious belief."

He said he would never perform the procedure for non-medical reasons. "That's out of the question. I think most of my colleagues wouldn't either."

He said he agreed with the current policy in place in the south-east region, where hospitals refuse to carry out the procedure.

"Certainly I am not going to do it, I don't care what they want. I'm not going to mutilate any children. If they come to this country they should be educated about the medical complications associated with circumcision. I feel it is unacceptable that this procedure be carried out for any reason, including religious belief."

Dr McHugh's comments contrast with a 2001 report on pregnancy services for asylum-seekers and refugees. The report, commissioned by the Eastern Regional Health Authority, recommended a review of policy in relation to circumcision at maternity hospitals.

According to one of the authors of the study, Dr Jo Murphy Lawless of the Department of Social Policy in UCD, research carried out for the study found access to the procedure to be one of the areas of concern for many women from ethnic minorities.

"We got a strong sense on the ground that there is a demand for it and we needed to put it in place. It was a demand that clearly had to be responded to."

According to Dr Murphy Lawless, there has been no significant change in policy towards circumcision in Irish maternity hospitals.

In its ethical guidelines on male circumcision, the British Medical Association said it had no policy on the medical benefits or risks associated with non-medical male circumcision.

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/1254449?view=Eircomnet

Circumcision quack sought
From:The Irish Independent
Sunday, 24th August, 2003
JIM CUSACK

GARDAI are considering the possibility that female circumcision is now being practised here among sections of the African immigrant population.

And gardai say the issue of circumcision now needs to be addressed by medical authorities and the Government, as it is not simply a criminal issue.

Many Christian, Muslim, and animist religions in Africa practise both male and, to a lesser degree, female circumcision.

Gardai are seeking the unlicensed practitioner who performed the circumcision of 30-day-old Callis Osaghae, the son of Nigerian parents living in Waterford, who bled to death last weekend after a botched operation. The man - a native of Northern Ireland - is believed to have carried out dozens of circumcisions among the African community in Ireland, charging €300 for each procedure.

Gardai suspect he may have returned to Northern Ireland. A warrant will be issued for his arrest in the North if he does not choose to return to Waterford for questioning. Senior gardai are still not sure what, if any, offence took place.

At the upper end of the criminal scale, gardai say they could be investigating manslaughter through negligence, which could carry a substantial prison sentence.

A Garda source said yesterday that there was a considerable lack of clarity over the issue of circumcision and the matter urgently needed to be addressed before further deaths or injuries occurred.

The act of cutting a new-born boy's foreskin off has been carried out here among members of the Jewish community since the last century and has raised no significant problems. It is usually carried out by a qualified doctor.

However, no structures exist for members of the more recent immigrant community, many of whom come from African countries where male circumcision is almost universal and female circumcisions - where all or part of the clitoris or labia is cut off - are common.

The parents of Callis Osaghae are from Nigeria, where more than 90 per cent of males are circumcised.

It is estimated that up to 30 per cent of females in Nigeria undergo a form of circumcision referred to as female genital mutilation. This is often carried out on pubescent girls and is an agonising procedure with frequent medical complications.

Most hospitals here refuse to carry out circumcisions until a male child is at least two years old and there would be considerable waiting lists for such non-essential surgery for immigrants with medical cards.

No Irish hospital would perform the ritualistic circumcision of females.

simu

Originally posted by simu I would agree but the problem is that in many ppl's heads the idea that it is the right thing for male infants to be circumcised is so deeply-anchored that they will make enormous efforts to have this operation carried out whether the State provides assistance or not. Isn't it better for the operations to take place in a hospital or clinic than "underground"? Now, get rid of the highlighted word "male" in there, and the statement still reads perfectly correctly. Except for one thing....you followed it up with : quote: Female mutilation must be stamped out, however .... So what you are saying is that some practices are ok, and we should offer them in hospitals because otherwise people will just do them anyway on the black market. Other practices, are not ok, so we should not offer them in hospitals, fircing people to just do them anyway on the black market....but that this is ok because the practices are bad and we should oppose them.

Comparing male and female circumcision is not valid as the female version is basically mutialtion. On the other hand, I know quite a few males who have been circumcised and manage to lead perfectly normal, painless sex lives.

bonkey

Originally posted by simu
[B I know quite a few males who have been circumcised and manage to lead perfectly normal, painless sex lives. [/B]

Which has nothing to do with anything.

If it is no medical basis for circumcision, then it is still nothing but mutilation.

jc

bloggs

Don't Rabbis carry out the procedure, and they don't have medical training either? Not sure about this though.

gom

Originally posted by bloggs
Don't Rabbis carry out the procedure, and they don't have medical training either? Not sure about this though.

There is a specially trained Medical Rabbi who travels to Ireland twice a year to carry out circumcisions.
The Jewish community in Ireland is in decline for the last number of years so this might change.

But in alot of areas there is nothing stopping circumsion being taken place.

To be honest I can't agree with Circumsion even on Religious grounds.
Where do u stop?
Do you allow Female Circumcsion too?
Most would say NO

But I say why allow one and not the other(I am discusted by the practice of Female Circumsion and in no way advicate it under any circumstances).

Any Religious practice that involves physically altering a childs body shouldn't take place. When that child comes of age they may choose to get circumcised(be them male or female) as concenting adults.

That said you can't see everyones gentials...

To avoid further botched jobs I think every hospital in the country and clinics also should offer cirumcisions(male only) to familys for religious and cultural reasons.
We can't get all high moraled when others have different moral systems. Take the dutch approach and solve the problem. NOt the irish one of ignorance

sceptre

Turns out that the Mid-Western health board are happy to carry out non-medical circumcisions

Paddy20

Hmmmm?..

Makes me wonder if the M.W.H.B. non-medical circumcisions are carried out by "Private" Surgeons using public beds in a public hospital, while pocketing their handsome fees, and ordinary patients waiting lists continue to increase as a direct result of "private surgeons" personal greed.

I certainly doubt if medical card holders could have this procedure carried out at the taxpayers expense. If they can, then Minister Martin hs a duty too intervene immediately?..

P.

simu

If it is no medical basis for circumcision, then it is still nothing but mutilation.

I think male circumcision is pointless but I'm being pragmatic here. Many ethnic/religious groups (Jews, Muslims...)carry out male circumcision and it would be very difficult to convince them to discontinue this practice. It is painful for a brief time but in nearly all cases it dosen't cause long term physical or psychological problems.

On the other hand, female circumcision is seen as a bizarre, barbaric practice by nearly all of the world's population so the majority of ppl would not have a problem with banning it. Plus, the fact that it interferes greatly with a woman's future life and reproductive capacities means that its impact is far more serious and dangerous than that of the male version.

Yes, I would prefer to ban both practices but as far as I see, whilst it would be possible to ban female circumcision and convince the minority of groups who practise it to change their ways, it would be alot harder to convince large groups such as Jews and Muslims to abandon male circumcision.

Sand

To avoid further botched jobs I think every hospital in the country and clinics also should offer cirumcisions(male only) to familys for religious and cultural reasons.
We can't get all high moraled when others have different moral systems. Take the dutch approach and solve the problem. NOt the irish one of ignorance

Hmmm, why cant we? I know I raised the problem with treating some cultures as barbaric but the more you think about it the clearer it is we do that regardless, and that we *should* do that - the torso which was found in the thames a while ago was apparently a child murdered in some voodoo or whatever ritual. We surely get all high moraled over that regardless of the different cultural beliefs or norms behind it.

Whatever the cultural reasons its likely that the children of those who hold those views might not hold those views themselves. Circumcision tends to be fairly irreverable so maybe the state has got to prevent such cultural rituals until the child is old enough to choose their own beliefs.

And the interesting consequence is that to be fair youd have to ban all communions and confirmations until the kids are 18 to keep it all nice and constitutional - that would get parents AND the kids up in arms I think.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
And the interesting consequence is that to be fair youd have to ban all communions and confirmations until the kids are 18 to keep it all nice and constitutional - that would get parents AND the kids up in arms I think.

I slightly disagree...

Communion and Confirmation do not involve physical aspects - nothing is removed / mutilated - which is where I think the government should have the right to intervene over cultural/religious beliefs.

I mean, the constitution says all religions are equal in the eyes of the law, but I don't believe that gives Rastafarians a right to legally smoke marijuana, so why should it give parents the right to mutilate children?

On the other hand....baptism, with the whole water thing....now that could be seen as a health hazard

sovtek

Some people seemed to be confused about what circumcision actually is.
It is removal of the foreskin of the penis. I'm no doctor and I'm sure both have arguments on either side, but it's hardly mutilation in the male case. It possibly does have health effects, such as in hygeine..although that may be more so in warm climates (which would explain the religious significance to Jews and Muslims).
While it's not a medical necessity it shouldn't be carried out by unlicensed practitioners (neither should peircing, tattoos..etc). I'm not sure that it should be subsidized by the State though.
I don't see how female mutilation even fits into this debate.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
but it's hardly mutilation in the male case.

I'd say it would take either a lawyer or a doctor to give a definitive answer on that.

I would say it meets all the technical requirements to be classified as such, but that bear in mind that I'm not necessarily saying that muilation should be illegal in every case.

jc

Sand

Communion and Confirmation do not involve physical aspects - nothing is removed / mutilated - which is where I think the government should have the right to intervene over cultural/religious beliefs.

I mean, the constitution says all religions are equal in the eyes of the law, but I don't believe that gives Rastafarians a right to legally smoke marijuana, so why should it give parents the right to mutilate children?

Agreed, but to intefere in a cultural religious ritual on the basis that the child may not hold such cultural beliefs, youll undoubtedly get it thrown right back in your face regarding, baptism, communion and confirmation which are all performed on children with great solemnity - and how many have received all these rites yet later on dont believe in god, or hold to some other belief set which is decidely not in tune with Catholic teachings?

Youd have to apply it across the board to avoid charges of bigotry and so on. Leftwingloonies.com would have a field day with you otherwise. At least now only christianloonies.com are gunning for you.

Mind you maybe the Church crowd would be 100% against it - it would mean those who do take up religious rituals will actually *want* to do so and youll have far less lapsed practioners. Priests have been refusing sacrements such as marraige to non regular parishoners in some cases Ive heard of.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
youll undoubtedly get it thrown right back in your face regarding, baptism, communion and confirmation which are all performed on children with great solemnity

Yes, but one can leave the catholic church.

I suppose it would be a question of whether you consider the (possibly irreversible) psychological implications to be as significant as the (definitely irreversible) physical ones when it came to what was permitted or not.

While I'm not suggesting that religious indoctrination of any sort be banned, I am suggesting that religious practices are, in certain cases, already not tolerated. and, in other cases, perhaps should not be.

I do recognise that banning core religious practices would be perceived as little different from actually banning the religion, and ultimatley I can never see the stance being taken. I'm just expressing what - to me - would be the best path to consider.

jc

swiss

This is quite an interesting topic, and I decided to throw the words "medical consequences circumcision" into google.

Originally posted by Simu:

It is painful for a brief time but in nearly all cases it dosen't cause long term physical or psychological problems.

The first link thrown up by google has the following to say:

A poll of circumcised men published in the British Journal of Urology describes adverse outcomes on men’s health and well-being. Findings showed wide-ranging physical, sexual, and psychological consequences. Some respondents reported prominent scarring and excessive skin loss. Sexual consequences included progressive loss of sensitivity and sexual dysfunction. Emotional distress followed the realization that they were missing a functioning part of their penis. Low-self esteem, resentment, avoidance of intimacy, and depression were also noted

Although I cannot guarantee the authenticity of this content, the article quotes

Hammond, T., "A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood," BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 85–92

as a reference.

Other sites appear to bolster this position. In fact I found no reference that I would describe unbiased, during my admittedly brief google trawl, that appeared to be in favor of circumcision. If anyone can find such a site, to provide some balancing views, please post it up so we can look at it.

The most widely touted medical benefit of circumcision appears to be that it "decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life". Having little or no medical knowledge, I cannot say whether this is true or not. However, most medical sources seem to agree that this is a rare problem, and there is skepticism that circumcision is necessary to solve this. One doctor cited that a small incision at the top of the foreskin was enough to solve this problem.

WARNING - THE FOLLOWING LINK CONTAINS IMAGES THAT SOME MAY FIND DISTURBING

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

The above website has an images (and a short movie, if anyone is interested in downloading - I passed) detailing circumcision of an infant. The pictures are sobering to say the least. The child is in obvious agony, and his penis appears to be a bloody mess. It appears more obvious to me how a child can easily die from blood loss if this practice develops complications or is performed by an untrained person.

I like to think of myself as a tolerant person, who respects other cultures and religions, as long as they do not encroach upon my freedoms. However, I have to take exception to something like this being performed in the name of religion to minors. It is one thing to dip an infants head in water, to get them to recite a few mantras at a priest during mass/confession/confirmation etc. It is quite another to mutilate them physically and psychologically.

If a person decides to have a circumcision, then I believe that he should wait until he is old enough to make that decision for himself, unless there is an overpowering medical reason why he should not. In this particular instance however, I believe an age of 12 - 13 is old enough for a child to make this decision, not the standard age of majority, which is 18 in many cultures.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but one can leave the catholic church.

It took a friend of mine 3 years to get excommunicated. Is there an easier way?

"How do I get out of this chickensh*t outfit?"

Sand

I do recognise that banning core religious practices would be perceived as little different from actually banning the religion, and ultimatley I can never see the stance being taken. I'm just expressing what - to me - would be the best path to consider.

I think though that if the government were to ban certain jewish/islamic practices - regardless of the obvious pain it causes the child ( many procedures that are carried out regularly are painful/distressing ) is going to be torn to shreds as inherently racist.

Youd certainly have members of the affected minority communities frothing at the mouth when informed that their cultural practices of circumcision are akin to mutilating a child/child abuse and youll have enough white,middle class and guilty about it looking to sign up as well.

I just believe that if its going to viewed as merely wholly invasive then youd have to apply it right across the board, and use a different principle than merely the childs pain to justify it, as true belivers are going to view cultural rituals just as important as medical procedures if not more so, as has been the case where parents sometimes forbid certain medical procedures because of their religious beliefs.

Either way its likely that no such controls will be brought because of the uproar it would cause.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/1398944?view=Eircomnet

Man held for fatal circumcision
From:The Irish Independent
Sunday, 7th September, 2003

A MAN has been remanded in garda custody in connection with a botched domestic circumcision on a 30-day-old baby boy.

Osagie Igbinedion, 29, from Nigeria, was charged with intentionally or recklessly performing a circumcision with a razor blade which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to Callis Osaghae.

The tragedy unfolded at a town house rented by the baby's parents Idehen, 31, and Mabel, 23, between 4 and 5pm on Sunday, August 17.

The parents of the baby allegedly paid up to €300 for the fatal operation. Little Callis was pronounced dead on Monday, August 18, at Waterford Regional Hospital. The accused was remanded in custody until next Tuesday, September 9.

ColinM

I think circumcision (surgical removal of the foreskin of males) is comparable to and as unnecessary as female ritual genital mutilation.

From Dictionary.com:
Mutilation:
1 To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2 To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3 To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

(excise means to remove or cut away)

Below I have quoted a review of a programme called The Day I Will Never Forget which aired on Channel 4 on Monday August 18th. The piece by Dominic Dromgoole appeared in The Sunday Times' August 24th issue of Culture Magazine.

"To say that the highlight of the viewing on offer last week was a film about female circumcision among the Somali community in Kenya sounds like the definition of a bad week. But that would do no justice to The Day I Will Never Forget (Monday, C4) I'll be surprised if I see anything more profound or original all year. The composition was wonderfully artful, Lazy tracking shots from a car window were interspersed between claustrophobic scenes of intense drama. The first gave a view of modern Kenya at a relaxed tempo: shanties, prim courthouses and green hills rolling by. The latter pitched us into makeshift clinics and cramped homes. The sensation throughout was of a community bulding an edifice of civility on fragile stilts.
The degree of access was extraordinary. Once scene filmed the consensual circumcision of a 12-year-old, followed by the forced cutting of her eight-year-old sister. The three plump ladies gleefully sat on the little girl while a cheerful cackling elder applied the knife. The girl's screams scaled up beyond the human to the chilling screech of the animal that knows it is about to die. When they had subsided, the merry crone who had inflicted all the pain thumped her in the crotch. It was 10 minutes of institutional sadism from the age of antiquity. And not a pretty sight.
"Tradition", they kept saying, the defenders of this practice. Tradition. Custom. Our culture. Some tried to justify it on religious grounds, only to be told it has no place in the Koran but is a practice descending from from pharaonic times. Though the film respected the fear of those whose identity depended on such customs, it did not fail to expose these acts as a perpetuation of suffering. Tradition meant an opportunity for the men to boast how they tore through stitching with their wedding-night baton charge; the mothers' shamed and defensive use of the word "culture" revealed its true underbelly. Their basic premise was simple: "If I suffered pain, why should my daughter not? Why should she have a better life?" In this the film proved a telling metaphor for human relations everywhere. But mostly it was about the agonised efforts of individuals and communities to break with such traditions.
One girl, Simalo, about 12, had been forcibly cut before being carried off to be an old man's concubine. When she ran away, we followed her return to her vilage to confront her mother. Whatever had happened to Simalo had built a wall of silence within her. She was unable to articulate her pain. Yet in one sequence of alfresco hymn-singing, she exploded into hair-raising voice, belting out her need for salvation, like a river of noise, before suddenly turning and retreating into her silence. Another sequence showed an astonishingly composed infant reciting a poem she had written, The Day I Will Never Forget. Somehow she had the presence of mind to lucidly describe the day of her mutilation. With the same composure she then interrogated her mother. The girl calmly said she would forgive her mother if she promised not to touch the three-year-old sister sitting beside her. Small mercies."

As TheRecklessOne has said already, why should people's backward beliefs be accomodated here when they are guests in our country? We would be expected to respect the laws, customs and traditions in their country.

To any bleeding-heart sympathisers, I would ask this hypothetical question: Let's pretend that I come from a fictional country where it is my culture to rape your children. Would you be so accomodating to me in that case? Can I assume that you would vociferously defend my right to express my culture?