Forced genital mutilation is illegal already, Mr Fearne
Labour’s Chris Fearne says he will propose a bill banning “female genital mutilation” and making it illegal. Now I know that he’s a paediatrician and not a lawyer, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to work out that forcing genital mutilation on somebody is illegal already, under normal laws.
It falls into the same category as forcing somebody to have their hand cut off, or to have their uterus removed, under threat and against their will.
We don’t need specific laws to ban that kind of thing – there are general laws to cover it. It’s the same with the practice of forced genital mutilation of women. It’s a criminal act already, Mr Fearne.
If Mr Fearne’s bill is to propose making even voluntary genital mutilation a criminal act, then he’s going to run into problems. This is a country that allows people to have sex change operations. How, then, do you make the voluntary genital mutilation of women a criminal act when the voluntary genital mutilation of men is celebrated by politicians?
How do you make it a criminal act for (some African) women to mutilate their genitals freely and by design when thousands of Maltese women are voluntarily having their chests sliced open under general anaesthetic and two alien objects inserted into them, paying large amounts of money for the process?
When other Maltese women have a lower rib removed to make their waist smaller, alien pads inserted into their buttocks, and poisons injected into their face?
When Maltese men are being subjected to advertisements encouraging them to pay lots of money to have their genitals mutilated in an attempt at changing the size and shape?
And when both Maltese men and women are knocked out while the fat in their abdomen, bottom and thighs is sucked out of them in a process so horrific that in an other circumstances Amnesty International would be called in?
Yes, I can see that the problem with the genital mutilation of women would be proving that it is voluntary, because it can fall into the same mess as “Yes, I really, really want to cover myself from head to foot in the blazing August heat”. But that can’t be covered by a law banning it outright. What we need is a proper reporting and counselling service and helpline, information campaigns and doctors’ training to ensure that they are not as daft in their outlook as Mr Fearne.
Mr Fearne’s ignorance of the law is more shocking still because he appears mainly, as a paediatrician, to be talking about girl-children and not adults. It is ALWAYS and ALREADY a criminal act to perform mutilating surgery of any kind on anybody under the age of 18, unless this is essential to save that child’s life.
It is established at law that parental consent (or for that matter, veto) do not come into it. In circumstances where parents insist on non-life-saving mutilation, or where they refuse consent for life-saving mutilation, the child is made a ward of court to protect it from the parents’ excesses.
The genital mutilation of women is actually the genital mutilation of girls. It has to take place while they are still young, otherwise it does not serve the purpose. That immediately deals with the problem referred to above, of proving that it is voluntary or forced. If a girl is under 18, she cannot statutorily volunteer herself for this procedure. Her parents or guardians are not legally empowered to volunteer her – rather the opposite, this is illegal.
When women are over 18, you can’t stop them doing anything to their bodies, whether it’s mutilating their genitals or having a couple of space balloons inserted into their chest.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
This attempt at moral grandstanding has already happened before. In 2006 Marie Louise Coleiro Preca proposed the same thing. Back then “persons working with immigrants who spoke with MaltaToday said they have not encountered any case of genital mutilation practised in Malta. This can be attributed to the fact that very few young girls actually reach Malta, where males predominate among the immigrant population.”
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/11/19/t8.html
Great article. Thanks.
The issue with genital mutilation performed on children is one of consent. Some people find female genital mutilation as unacceptable as male circumcision.
[Daphne – There is absolutely no comparison between the two, so please don’t equate them in any way.]
Whereas tattoos, implants etc., are bought by adults believing that these would enhance their aesthetic beauty and sexual pleasure, this is not the case with genital mutilation of girls where the operation is irreversible, reduces sexual pleasure for the women involved, and often leads to painful urination, infection, bleeding and death when performed underground.
[Daphne – It does not REDUCE sexual pleasure. It eliminates all possibility of it, which is the point, and to make certain that women will not have sex unless it is with their husband and when their husband decrees it, this mutilation ensures that sexual intercourse is actual torture, because the vagina is sewn up.]
Female genital mutilation performed on children is an act of aggression as it does not involve the consent of the child. (A minor is never deemed capable of consent). It also diminished a women at an early age into a subservient object for the pleasure of men.
When talking about genital mutilation one implies that this is performed on babies, usually for cultural reasons. The common (and probably more specific and accurate term) is circumcision.
Both male and female circumcision are most commonly performed for religious or cultural reasons. The difference is that while male circumcision does not leave a man sexually incapacitated, female circumcision includes the removal of the clitoris and in some cases the labia too. It is done with the sole intention of removing any pleasure women might experience during sex.
I think what Mr. Fearne is trying to ban is (specifically) the act of female circumcision on babies, and I doubt any general laws cover this.
[Daphne – For God’s sake, Chris, of course they do. You can no more chop up a girl baby’s genitals under Maltese law than you can chop off her fingers. The same laws come into play. There don’t need to be different laws for mutilating different parts of the body, and there are not.]
My knowledge of local law is very poor [Daphne – You’re telling me it is.], but if there is a general law that covers this then it would include circumcision for religious or cultural reasons. I don’t think that is illegal in Malta but correct me if I’m wrong.
[Daphne – I just did. Chop off a girl baby’s genitals or chop off her foot, and the same laws come into play. Religion has NOTHING to do with it. In a secular democracy like Malta’s you cannot use religion to justify physical harm or other forms of abuse. It remains illegal.]
This topic does always however raise an interesting point. Should we specifically ban the genital mutilation of girls for cultural reasons but allow that of boys?
[Daphne – There is no comparison between the genital mutilation of girls and the circumcision of boys. None whatsoever. Banning the circumcision of boys is about as pointless as banning parents from getting their child’s ears pierced.]
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? For certain people, there is no distinction between male and female circumcision and if there is any ambiguity in the law then it makes more sense to clarify the law than to wait for it to be tried in court.
[Daphne – ‘For certain people’. Actually, courts decide on the basis of expert testimony, not on the views of those who don’t know the difference between circumcising a boy and chopping off a girl’s labia then sewing up her vagina.]
I beg to differ from your assessment of male circumcision, Daphne. It is obviously not as traumatic as what they do to girls. The male equivalent of FGM would be cutting off the entire head of the penis.
Equating it to ear piercing is, however, wrong. Male circumcision also has its dangers and one must not lose sight of the fact that before it became a tribal marker, the original rationale behind male circumcision was to reduce sexual pleasure and possibly prevent masturbation Obviously it fails to do the latter, but studies show that it actually succeeds in the former. In the US, the excuse of cleanliness and prevention of infection has been used to have babies routinely circumcised, even when not mandated by religion. The medical community is however now waking up to the fact that it causes more problems than it solves.
Therefore, in my view, the aims of both types of genital mutilation being similar, it makes no sense to ban one and allow the other.
Religion can never be allowed to be used as an excuse to trump law. If an individual grows up to be of consenting age and wishes to honour the edict of whatever religion he or she subscribes to, then he/she can do whatever he/she wants with his/her pudenda, or whatever else he wants to cut off. But only then does that become his/her decision.
As an aside, the absolutely batshit mentality of religions never fails to baffle me.
Look what a perfect little bundle of joy the almighty God decided to give us – it’s in His own image! Now, quick take that sharpened stone to it’s genitalia and hack away at the bad bits!
Bah. Totally hopeless if you ask me.
Even though the origins of the act of female genital mutilation is a bit unknown, there seems to be a lot pointing towards not being a religious, but rather cultural, tradition.
[Daphne – The origins are not unknown, and they are not religious. They are cultural, the equivalent of the medieval chastity belt.]
In the name of (any) religion, ANYTHING is justified.
To the believers, naturally.
Don’t be baffled. A religious belief is just that. It doesn’t have to be (and isn’t, probably in almost all cases) rational.
Religion and reason have always been at odds, and they’re not about to stop any time soon. It’s in their DNA.
If someone has gone to Chris Fearne to have their child’s genitals mutilated, then he should report them to the police.
I found this paper online:
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/current-situation-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-malta-pbMH3112942/?CatalogCategoryID=cOwKABstC3oAAAEjeJEY4e5L
And you’re right, Daphne, that female genital mutilation can be covered by general laws but from what I understand that would still require it being tried in court with the possibility (albeit slight) of the act being declared non-criminal since lawyers could argue that it does not result in death or seriously endager health.
[Daphne – Absolutely wrong. If you chop off a child’s fingers it will neither kill her nor endanger her health. Yet you would still be jailed for it, even if – especially if – you are her parent. The same goes for female genital mutilation, which is much worse.]
I think given the ambiguity of the law as it currently stands and the increasing population at risk (children of sub-Saharan communities) then a specific law is actually needed.
“There is no comparison between the genital mutilation of girls and the circumcision of boys. None whatsoever. Banning the circumcision of boys is about as pointless as banning parents from getting their child’s ears pierced.”
Females would talk like that, wouldn’t they? Coming from a female, that’s just as capricious and selfish as any typical racist remark (which is only uttered by anyone who’s not of the targeted race).
[Daphne – Female what, FP? Cats, dogs, tortoises? If you are speaking of female humans, there’s a word for us, and it’s women, or girls. If you think the genital mutilation of women is IN ANY WAY comparable to the circumcision of boys, you have no idea what is involved and I pity whichever woman has had to have sexual relations with you because your knowledge of human biology seems scant. The process amounts to torture – permanent torture, and that is exactly the point, because the only reason it is done is make sex so hellishly painful, forever, that women do not have sex outside marriage and within marriage, will only have sex when their decreed husband forces himself on them. If you don’t understand what’s involved, look it up. I am certainly not going to give any graphic descriptions here, on a website read by young teenagers. It is for that reason that I have deleted the rest of your comment.]
It is the individual’s consent, and that individual’s alone, that matters. All the rest is just talk.
Chris Fearne’s mother chairs the government’s advisory board on children and young persons.
No idea what this gentleman is really proposing and you are of course correct in saying that this is already highly illegal, but you missed the most vital point:
“… and also banning the practice of submitting Maltese girls to the practice abroad. This move would prevent harm being done to Maltese girls of African origins in other countries.”.
This legislation was enacted in Sweden in, I believe, the late 90s and is a bit controversial in that it penalises for acts done in a different country, but still makes complete sense and is enacted to protect vulnerable girls.
[Daphne – Any such legislation is pointless. If it is legal to perform genital mutilation on a child in state X, and the genital mutilation takes place there, then you can’t extradite the perpetrators. If it is illegal to do it in state X, then the law of state X comes into play, and not Maltese law. This is the reason Maltese abortion law is territorial and not linked to the individual. You can’t make it illegal for a Maltese person to have an abortion. You can only make it illegal for abortions to be performed in Malta. It is perfectly legal for a Maltese woman to have an abortion in London, Catania, Rome or wherever else is convenient and Maltese law or the Maltese police can’t do anything about it. The reason Maltese women do not speak about their abortions overseas is not because they have performed an illegal act but because they wish to avoid social opprobrium.]
Patrick, it’s surprising that that legislation is only “controversial” and not downright illegal.
A law like that would set a precedent for a state to have jurisdiction in any other matter over any other state.
Are you sure about this? It’s not making much sense to me.
It’s not jurisdiction in another state, even though the crime took place. They are charged as and when (if) they return to Sweden.
Having jurisdiction of what happens in another state, even if by your own citizens, and tried upon their return, is illegal to my mind.
As I said, surprising.
[Daphne – It’s a lot more complicated than that.]
FP: I agree and it’s been a both administrative and legal roller coaster. As far as I know there has only been two cases, of mutilations taking place in a foreign state, which have led to a sentence.
That said, there is something to be said about the protection of young girls, who unfortunately are under the control of their parents and at a whim to the laws of the country they are taken to and I can’t think of a better way to protect them – while at the same time seeing the strong analogy of the same argument being used in cases of abortion (as per Daphne’s comment above).
I’m all for protection, Patrick. Don’t get me wrong.
But unless this becomes a universal right, there can be no meaningful protection.
And in any case, a law to prevent genital mutilation can never be enforced.
What is a young child to do when at the mercy of his or her slayer? Invoke their rights? Or perhaps even later in life? What would be the point then? How can that ever be “protection”?
This is totally unenforceable. And as long as there’s religion- and culture-imposed ignorance in this world, genital mutilation is here to stay. Any form of protection against it would be an illusion.
It’s hard to put in practice, but there have been at least two cases where the actual mutilation took place in Somalia and Mogadishu, yet they were considered perpetrators when they arrived back in Sweden and the mutilation was found.
I think this whole mess was started by Amnesty International and if I not mistaken Medicins Sans Frontiers, which have for a number of years, been criticising the Maltese authorities for not having a specific law to make female genital mutilation illegal in Malta, arguing that they had evidence to prove that this was happening within the local Somali immigrant community. The Maltese government’s counter-argument was precisely the same as yours.
People from lawless nations will never abide by laws. See what happens in the UK, Germany, France, Italy……
It is so easy to judge people without knowing anything about them, isn’t it.
Care to explain how you come to the conclusion that people from “lawless nations” will never abide by laws?
You shouldn’t judge whole groups of people by the actions of the few who make the news, unless you are prepared to come to the conclusion that the Maltese are all rapists, child molesters, murderers and thieves.
The terrible procedure is called “infibulation” (from Latin “fibula”, a pin that was used to fasten a cloak). The atrocity is common in the horn of Africa and, though not exactly a muslim practice and is also practised by some non-muslims, it is mostly done by muslims. The procedure is designed to put women under the total control of men by eliminating completely the possibility of sexual pleasure. It is the ultimate in rendering women mere chattels. The poignant movie “Desert Flower” tells the story of Waris Dirie, a model, who, as a child, had been infibulated.
I do not quite agree that a law specifically banning infibulation would be superfluous or irrelevant as it could impose special penalities on the perpetrators. For instance, child abuse is illegal but there are special provisions which contemplate special penalties in certain contexts. Enacting special laws when general laws exist is nothing new and the special law would over-ride the general one (lex specialis derogat generalis). It is my view that one should not politicize this matter.
I know that Daphne will not upload this or, if she does, she will shoot down my arguments. It is now established that she will not admit the possibility that she may err. Just as the PN can do no wrong in her eyes, the PL can do nothing right. All is grist for the political mill as far as she us concerned. Oh well, this all goes to show that we live in a democracy and that is as it should be.
Geez dear Hypatia, your theory re Daph didn’t quite make the level. Tut tut
Can I recommend a good book on genital mutilation please? DESERT FLOWER by Waris Dirie. It is an autobiography of this Somali girl turned model who now fights against this terrible ritual in various cultures.
[Daphne – Why would anybody want “a good book on genital mutilation”? ]
We don’t need specific laws at all. There are two basic categories of crime: on the person and on one’s property. Crimes on the person include homicide and various degrees of bodily harm, while property crimes include gain under false pretence along with theft, with or without violence. That is all we basically need. Most other crimes are either superfluous or downright criminalisation of the market.
But we’ve been bred to believe that the more criminal laws we enact the more civilised we become. As in most other cases in this topsy-turvy world, the contrary is the truth.