Given that female circumcission (known as FGM)is against the law how come no one has yet been charged?

In October last, MLC Gordon Moyes asked, in the house, why no person had been charged for FGM, and as yet received no answer, to my knowledge.

While it is not known how many patients all hospitals treat for post FGM problems, Auburn hospital treats 40-50 per year. This is nearly one per week and Auburn has a specific unit set up for that purpose.

Therefore 500 girls have been mutilated in the past 10 years.

AS a simple medical examination can detect FGM and many victims require proper medical attention, the question has to be asked why no one has been prosicuted.

If a girl victim has been born here and no been out of Australia, the parents or guardian should be responsible. That does not seem too difficult.

If I shoot a kangaroo ilegallly or conducted a bullfight or cockfight, I would be prosecuted.

Looks like some people are immune to prosecution

The problem with trying to hold the parents responsible is that they are not, legally. On might guess that at least one of them has conspired with someone to have the mutilation done, but which one? And how do you prove it?

Similarly, one of them presumably knows about the commission of the offence itself, and since it's a "serious indictable offence", that parent is under a legal compulsion to inform the authorities, on pain of a 2 year prison sentence, but again the problem is one of proof.

If the parents refuse to discuss the matter with the authorities, it will be very difficult to obtain the required proof.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else,
Firstly there is no doubt about the mutilation and I understand it is usually carried out on minors. Parents are responsible jointly for the welfare of their children, so I do not see a problem with proving aiding and abetting of the mutilation.

I think it is more a case of medical personel not having to report the mutilation of victims and the State Government "turning a blind eye" and this only keeps the practice on going.

I cannot think of any cultural practice more apalling.

Banjo,

The legal problem is that it must be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that a specific person engaged in a specific unlawful act. The argument that parents are responsible for their children simply won't run in court, because it would not be proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that either the father, or the mother, or possibly both, were actively involved in the mutilation. Each could deny any knowledge. Since it is entirely possible for the mutilation to be performed by, or on behalf of, one parent without the knowledge of the other parent, at least prior to the event, it is perfectly plausible that the other parent was not involved.

You might argue that the other parent must have known after the event (and should therefore have reported it to the police), but even if you can prove that, you're still faced with the problem of not knowing which of the parents is the other parent in this context.

So you end up with a number of possibilties about which offences were committed, and by whom. Even if you've proved that each parent must have committed some offence, that's not good enough in law. You have to identify the specific offence that each parent committed.

The law could be changed to make both parents criminally liable if the child is found to have been mutilated, without actual proof of involvement. There are issues with that, and I suspect parliament would be unwilling to go that far.

Female genital mutilation is barbaric, and I would be happy to see those involved locked up for an extended period, as indeed the law provides. However, in practice, some problems are difficult to solve by legislation, and education is the way to go.

Sylvia.

I take the point on law by Sylvia, but this can be resolved through legislation. Both parents should be held equally criminally liable. An out for a parent should only be if that parent can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no knowledge, prior to the event and after. Unfortunately issues like this does not on the whole catch the imagination of the population at large and therefore there is no urgency for politicians to act.

Also, criminal law is a hash in Australia. Each and every state has its own laws.

FGM in an horrendous and barbaric practice but it will never be stamped out until Muslim men refuse to marry mutilated women, and FGM is made immediate grounds for divorce.
Tough on those so mutilated but for the ultimate greater good of Muslim women...
This is also possibly an area of reconstructive surgery that could be developed.

But ultimately it is the males who can change the practice; once they can come to terms with having a relationshp with complete women.
FGM may be a cultural practice these days but it stems from male inadequacy and desire for control.

Anyone who may consider it to be a relatively harmless practice should have a good talk with an Obstectrics Sister or an experienced midwife.
Birth for many victims of FGM is an extremely painful experience, well beyond the pain associated with normal birth.

If the FGM is restricted to clitoral excission then elasticity of the vaginal area is not destroyed but if the excission includes the Labia Majorum and Labia Minorum then virtually all elasticity is severely inhibited by the resultant scar tissue.

The lack of action could be attributed to a political perception that votes might be lost, still one ought not be cynical.

Banjo,

You commented that you think that "it is more a case of medical personel not having to report the mutilation of victims [...]"

In my view medical personnel do have to report the mutilation. This is because female genital mutilation, being an offence that carries a penalty of seven years in prison, is a serious indictable offence.

To my mind, failing to report the mutilation is concealing a serious indictable offence, contrary to section 316 of the NSW Crimes Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s316.html

This obligation would supercede any medical confidentiality requirements.

That section, together with the regulations, prevent a prosecution against medical personnel under that section unless that prosecution has be approved by the Attorney General. It may be that you need to address your concerns to the Attorney General so that he can make it known that he would approve such prosecutions in the event the medical personnel fail to report genital mutilation.

Sylvia.

That's a bit harsh! Muslim men are not to marry a circumcised woman. 'Sorry, we have lots in common, love your style, but your mum and dad took a knife to you so you suffer the consequences.' Can non Muslim men marry mutilated women or are they exempt? FGM is a cultural practice, it is not a muslim requirement and is unfortunately supported and perpetrated by women. The only religion where genital mutilation is a requirement is Judaism.

Proper legislation and education will stamp out the practice of FGM.

Sylvia Else,
My apoligies, I was under the impression (wrongly) that there was no obligation to report FGM by medical practicioners.

Do you know who is responsible for investigating to see if prosecution is possible and how many cases are investigated.

As far as I can tell FGM is a cultural practice mainly,but not exclusively, carried out by Muslims. In some Africian areas FGM is carried out in christian communities.

I have long advocated that we give potential immigrants far more information about our society than we do at present. This should include the fact that FGM is illegal and the equality of women and that scantly clad people frequent beaches and nearby areas.

It is far too late for migrants to find out about these types of matters on arrival. They have to be informed before they decide to come here.

Banjo,

Initial investigation would be a matter for the police. Prosecutions would be the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, I am sure you'll find that no medical personnel have been prosecuted for failing to report cases of genital mutilation. The reason that prosecutions require the approval of the Attorney General is that prosecuting medical personnel over information they've obtained as a result of providing medical treatment is a very sensitive issue. The concern is that people would not seek treatment if they feel they're at risk of being prosecuted as a result. In this particular context, there's a clear risk that parents would not seek treatment for their daughters.

So I remain of the view that the issue is one you'd have to take up with the Attorney General. The response you get may well be that telling medical personnel that they must comply with the Crimes Act as regards reporting genital mutilation could well do more harm than good.

Sylvia.

Yvonne et al,

It is true that some Muslim women are the ones that encourage FGM,
however it doesn't alter the proposition that Muslim men need to get with real women.

There is little chance that non-Muslim men will marry a mutilated woman.
First, because marriage of Muslim daughters in traditional families to outsiders is not tolerated.
Secondly, the western male is a firm believer in 'try before you buy' and one experence of a fully mutilated woman will send him packing.

A 'mere' clitorus removal may escape his immediate notice but he's bound to discover it and then there could be problems.

Male circumcision in Judaism does not have the ramifications of female mutilation; in fact in hot countries where there is a lack of water it does more good than harm.
It certainly, in un-hygenic conditions lessens the chance of the female suffering infections from sexual intercourse.

There are other cultures/religions that practice FGM but Muslims seem to be the main perpetrators,especially in Australia, and it is the men who can change things and stamp out the practice. Once the idea gets around that a mutilated daughter is not going to get/stay married then the believers in mutilaton will either have to carry the burden/stigma of having unmarried daughters or give up the practice.

Sylvia,
One thing I would like to know. We know that FGM is carried out exclusively by Muslims in Australia. Is there any particular nationality that practices this more than others or is it across a few or many nationalities.

I understand the reasons for not reporting or investigating FGM but I don'y know if I fully agree with it. Maybe if the Government decided to really get tough from a certain date and before that date carried out extensive education and information programmes locally and made sure ALL prospective migrants were told of this. It may have the effect of lowering the incidence, Just a thought.

Why do those that carry out MGM in NSW have immunity from prosecution. Oh that doesn't concern you? Hypocrite.

Steel,

There is no corresponding offence of male genital mutilation, so the issue of immunity from prosecution does not arise.

Sylvia.

Exactly. There is no offence for it. It is interesting how the same people who 'care' about FGM are silent on MGM, indicating hypocrisy. There shouldn't be any gender prefix. It should simply be "Genital Mutilation".

Steel,

Banjo has identified a specific issue related to the fact that there is a law against female genital mutilation which people seem able to ignore with impunity. The issue he or she raised focuses on the impunity, not on the law itself. Since there is no law against male genital mutilation, it is not possible for Banjo to raise concerns about violations of it.

Maybe there should be a law about male genital mutilation, and maybe Banjo has views about that. I don't doubt that Banjo has views about many things. The mere fact that he or she has not chosen to express those views in this thread tells you nothing. You certainly cannot infer an indifference about it, so your accusation of hypocrisy is not based on anything resembling evidence.

Sylvia.

Banjo's choice between an existing law and a non-existent law is enough. The pattern of sexism that has formed in debate and policy due to that choice is as plain as the legal incongruity itself.

There is no incongruity either in law or in practice.
The male equivalent would be removal of seven eights of the penis whilst leaving the ability to produce and eject sperm.
FGM ruins a woman's enjoyment of her sex life or at the very least seriously diminishes it.
Circumcision possibly enhances the males enjoyment and in certain cases is medically necessary.

"The male equivalent would be removal of seven eights of the penis "
That's called castration idiot.

FGM in Australia? Thank you multiculturalism!

Dear Steel,

Now don't let your frustration at being unable to comprehend simple English get the better of your inate desire not to be offensive.

Shortening of the penis is not castration; castration is removal of the testes; or in simpler more easily understandable terms 'cuttin' off yer balls'
Compre?

Tragically comparisons with male circumcision trivialise female genital mutilation and makes eradication unlikely. I would be unsurprised if this thread gets derailed as a result of this comparison.

For some reason some homosexual groups ardently hate male circumcision and they can be just as effective at persuading as other types of homosexual activists. Whether this hatred is some type of foreskin fetish or due to the association with the Judaic beginnings of Christianity (something else homosexual activists typically hate) or some other explanation I don't know.

I took an interest in this a few years ago. I read a study supposedly debunking research indicating that circumcision protects against AIDS. The study claimed that circumcision shouldn't be seen as beneficial against AIDS because the AIDS acquired by the uncircumcised is not due to their foreskin but "factors associated with the foreskin". As human life is at stake I fail to relate to this irrelevant and pedantic distinction. It simply shows the determination to oppose circumcision.

I also read a reputable medical organisation downplaying circumcision as a risk factor for penile cancer but listing phimosis as a risk factor. Hello! Phimosis is a tight foreskin. Circumcising prevents tight foreskins. For the record I emailed the relevant organisation due to internet comments about research that made it sound like there is doubt about the relevant effectiveness of circumcision. They emailed me two studies that didn't verify the comments that they supposedly were authority for. As with other areas of preventative medicine it probably isn't essential these days but it seems strange to criticise it too much as some people benefit so much from so little. But some people feel quite strongly.

We live at a time when fluoridisation, circumcision, and immunisation are held out by fanatical groups as a blight on society. Preventative medicine is not enjoying a hay day.

For trivia buffs: In cold countries circumcision seems to be next to useless as a preventative measure and can be counterproductive in extreme situations. Arctic explorers who are circumcised are more likely to get frostbite where they least want it.

Correction:

For trivia buffs: In cold countries circumcision seems to be next to useless as a preventative measure FOR PENILE CANCER and can be counterproductive in extreme situations. Arctic explorers who are circumcised are more likely to get frostbite where they least want it.

I thought I should clarify that as other things like AIDs and Urinary Tract infections may not be affected by climate.

Finally, if you are planning on living recklessly and dieing young you won't get penile cancer anyway. The reduction in Australian circumcision rates of neonates in the 70s won't result in painful deaths for about another 20 years.

Why no prosecutions?

Perhaps the family would not bring them to the hospital -- speculation only. But then it would be more of a problem when the bodies start to pile up at the morgue. How would the Telegraph spin that one? After all it is only a few.

But why would any well informed person be surprised about pandering to the minorities

In Auburn schools it is offensive to show the soles of your shoes to certain people when sitting down for polite conversation. The government departments who promulgate this crap are apparently not offended by someone who is offended, when it is patently obvious no offense was intended.

Government by the minority for the minority.

The obscene suggestion of cutting off a man's penis is equivalent to some modification to the clitoris, leaving the entire vagina intact,simply illustrates my point. Genital mutilation is wrong, regardless of gender.
"AIDS..."
Ok this is a rubbish argument (amongst a few). I'm only bothered to respond to one though.
1 Those studies are conducted in Africa. Africans do not practice safe sex because religious groups and agencies have taught africans for decades that contraception (safe sex) is wrong/bad/immoral. This includes Pope JPII. This is why AIDS is prevalent. Lack of education. MGM isn't a shield against AIDS.
2 People in western countries use contraception, because they are educated responsibly and not deceived by religious groups.
3 There are contradicting studies and the differences are marginal anyway.

Nothing obscene at all, Steel.
Had you comprehended what you had read then you wouldn't say that, and to clarify the point I referred to gross mutilation. If the words Labia Majora and Labia Minora (to use the more precise Latin plural forms) are beyond your understanding, then I will translate and elucidate, using the help of The Concise Collins Dictionary.

'Labium (n) pl. Labia: any one of the four lip-shaped folds of the female vulva, comprising an outer pair (labia majora) and an inner pair (labia minora).'

I think that it is most important to any discussion to understand just what is being discussed and if one has to be graphic then so be it.
To equate FGM in anyway to male circumcision is to trivialize both the seriousness of this barbaric practice and the debate.

Most cases of FGM have nothing to do with the labia and only deal with the clitoris. It's a common ploy to select the most extreme cases (in third world countries) and present them as a mainstream practice in other countries.
"To equate FGM in anyway to male circumcision is to trivialize both the seriousness of this barbaric practice and the debate."
No it doesn't. To trivialise (and ignore) MGM is sexist, and diminishes the credibility of people who focus only on FGM. It's like saying some types of slavery are ok and others are unnacceptable.

The following is from the New Scientist. Enjoy:
"Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activity
* 12:30 24 September 2002
* Emma Young
Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria.......... in some regions, it is the women themselves who must be persuaded the practice is undesirable, say local health workers."
Note this is where the most extreme form of FGM exists. ^_^

From WHO.

'Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:

Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;
Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;
Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);
Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts);
introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.
The most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases; the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures'

OK,Steel? Just a wee nick? Cutting out the Labia Minora (80%) means that the seal to stop air being pumped in is gone.

Now that we have firmly established what is involved, could we get back to the question at debate?

"Most cases of FGM have nothing to do with the labia and only deal with the clitoris."

Gee! Just a clitoris huh? That is reassuring. Perhaps I have overreacted by being horrified by FGM and thinking it was incomparable with circumcision. *sarcastic tone of typing*

Do you realize that the clitoris is in some respects analogous to a penis not a foreskin? Do you realize that what you see is the tip of the iceberg and in FGM they cut out the whole thing?

Why are you citing studies on the benefits of FGM? You don't actually support FGM and deliberately want to derail the discussion by references to circumcision do you?

I am sure the law would have something to say if we began cutting off the head of males penis. Circumcision only removes the foreskin not the head of the penis. Perhaps cultures who practise FGM should have, under their law, males undergo the equivalent - then it would soon stop.

Damn, Steel, give us a rest.

I don't know if you were lopped and now carry a grudge against the world; or whether you are one of the 'male-ists' that go thermal every time you see something that seems to discriminate against men.

I don't know and I don't care.

The point is that there is no correlation between male cirumcision and FGM. Which is one of the reasons why it is no longer called female circumcision.

Male circumcision removes a vestigal flap of skin that results in no functional impairment. It is done for a variety of reasons in a variety of cultures as either a mark of manhood, as a means of cultural superiority or as a hygene measure. As a baldy, I can attest that there is no lasting damage involved. Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)

FGM removes essential areas of a woman's anatomy FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of causing physical impairment. The operation is, for the most part, carried out in unsantiary conditions by non-medically trained persons. More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues. The act is carried out for the purpose of subjugating women. By eliminating a victim's ability to enjoy sex, it is supposed to encourage viginity and fidelity. Regardless of the fact that it is perpetrated by women on women, it is done to satisfy the supposed superiority of men.

Stop trying to derail the debate and get with the program. The fact that other members of my sex are encouraging these barbaric acts anywhere makes me angry. The fact that it is carried out in Australia is disturbing beyond belief.

Sylvia Else: I can see where health professionals would get caught in the middle of these issues, but I still think that they have an obligation to report it. And BOTH parents should be held accountable. I'm a believer in multiculturalism, but FGM is a crime and no agonizing about cultural sensitivity could ever excuse it.

Here here mylakhrion,

What you say is common sense and based on personal experience. However you would be surprised how effective and determined homosexual groups opposing circumcision are. For example.

They even convince mothers that their son's penis will have little or no sexual pleasure if he gets circumcised and try to give the same fear to uncircumcised males. The anti-circumcision groups will use any excuse to delay circumcision so that it becomes a feared unknown as much as possible. (Unfortunately it also robs it of most potential medical benefit by delaying it.) An uncircumcised male considering the procedure will change his mind if he is scared that he will get no sexual pleasure. If he had circumcised younger he would no better.

"Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)"

I recall a friend telling me about a lady in a hairdressing salon who stated that she doesn't like them "with a windsock".

If you were to read "How to be the Perfect Lover" you could note the observations of the sexologist doctor that infant circumcision seems to guarantee maximum growth of the glans. Some women might like that.

"More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues."

In some cases it is actually done so that first intercourse is difficult and it will be obvious if the lady is a virgin. Naturally such interference wrecks the women for life.

"Stop trying to derail the debate and get with the program. The fact that other members of my sex are encouraging these barbaric acts anywhere makes me angry. The fact that it is carried out in Australia is disturbing beyond belief."

Well put.

"I don't know and I don't care."
Then why raise it? I could easily reverse your statement, substituting the male, for female but it isn't necessary. Either you're admitting there is psychological and physical harm from MGM, or you're admitting there IS discrimination. Either way, you reveal the duplicity and sexism perfectly. I could stop here, but I will continue because you are ignorant, sexist and have a discriminatory viewpoint.

"The point is that there is no correlation between male cirumcision and FGM."
Of course there is. They both disfigure/mutilate the sexual anatomy. In many (or most) cases, female circumcision has less of a footprint than male circumcision. Like i said above, the very worst cases are used emotively as an argument in our society: Take the worst practices of a specific third world country and transplant it into a debate into a first world country where it has no place. Evidence suggesting it isn't as bad as it's made out to be is ignored (I WONDER WHY.../sarcasm).

"Male circumcision removes a vestigal flap of skin that results in no functional impairment." So what? It's still mutilation. With that argument, I can scar a baby's face or body with a knife when it is born (no functional impairment). Besides that fallacy, it is disputed. I've also provided information above about FGM that you are clearly ignoring. Until you can demonstrate that you understand and have read these references, there is little point in further discussion.

"It is done for a variety of reasons in a variety of cultures as either a mark of manhood, as a means of cultural superiority or as a hygene measure." So is female circumcision....ffs, can you submit an argument that can't be reversed? Because so far you have demonstrated yourself to be nothing less than an hypocrite.

"As a baldy, I can attest that there is no lasting damage involved. Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)" How would you know what it's like to not be mutilated? Did you have a medical condition, or was it from birth, or voluntary? This is another reversal anyway. some of the men prefer FGM! ;) ......."OH NOES! HOW INHUMANE! THE HORROR! THOSE MEN MUST BE BARBARIC!" The squeals and howls of hypocrisy can be heard for miles

"The operation is, for the most part, carried out in unsantiary conditions by non-medically trained persons."
Again reversal destroys your argument. So is MGM in the third world countries you're referring to...i'll pretend we are living in those countries for the sake of this argument here in Australia (you guys insist on this bait and switch).

"More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues."
Same with MGM. Again reversal essentially destroys your argument. Some male babies have lost their penis and/or died from the practice. As shown in the links above, the WORST form of FGM, yields women who not only enjoy orgasm, but advocate the practice (just as you have men and women here advocating MGM and doing it to their baby sons who get no say in the matter and are scarred for life permanently).

"The act is carried out for..........."
Now you are making stuff up. Read the supplied links above plz -_- I don't know how you think you can speak for all these people and their intents. Unlike you (apparently), I read before I have an opinion.

"Writing in the Journal Pediatrics (August 2004), Israeli physicians cautioned against a traditional form of circumcision in which the blood is cleaned from the wound not by a suction device but by the circumciser's taking wine into his mouth and then sucking blood from the wound. Researchers, led by Dr. Benjamin Gesundheit of Ben-Gurion University, found eight (8) cases of infants having developed herpes from circumcisers' mouths.

- Copyright 2004 Chuck Shepherd
Distributed by Universial Press Syndicate
4520 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111; 816-932-6600"

FGM and Mgm should be banned and not done to children.both remove pleasure.here are good links.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf

some studies show women prefer having their prepuce or vestigial flap of skin removed as well.here are the links.
http://www.circlist.com/femalecirc/femalecirc.html
http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/
this study says circumcised women are less likely to get hiv.
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
my opinion is that children should not have any body part that is functioning properly removed.