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.

[Daphne – Why would anybody want “a good book on genital mutilation”? ]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.]

It’s not jurisdiction in another state, even though the crime took place. They are charged as and when (if) they return to Sweden.