Dear Nhoj,

<<David f, you have no objection to male genital mutilation?>>

I'm impressed!

My own response: yes, I believe that male genital mutilation is wrong, just as female genital mutilation is.

However, I believe that using the force of the law to ban either and incarcerate those who so practice, is even more wrong.

How could we possibly assume that a secular, involuntary, opportunistic and corrupt body such as the state has a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong?

If we use the power of state to hit others for doing those things which we happen to believe are wrong, then we should not be surprised when that same blind state hits us over the most moral activities that we perform with complete conscientious conviction.

Dearest Yuyutsu,

So, you believe banning FGM is even more wrong than the practise of FMG.

Do you not even understand what FGM actually is, as opposed to MGM? Let me educate you....

In FGM the ENTIRE CLITORIS is totally removed, making it impossible for females to orgasm. It's a sexual control method used against women, in order to better "control" women when they become adults.

In MGM, only a little bit of skin covering is removed, and the anatomical parts responsible for orgasm are left 100% in tact.

Now that I've educated you on the difference, do you STILL think that banning FGM is more wrong than the practice of FGM?

I don't think circumcision of males equates to female genital mutilation. It arguably has certain benefits such as lowering the possibility of getting or transferring sexually transmitted diseases. It may even increase sexual enjoyment for males. Whether or not it is allowed it is a much less serious business than FGM.

Excision of the clitoris removes the centre of the female orgasm and can have many other harmful after effects such as fistula.

However, the point of my comment was not whether or not one favours circumcision. The point is that I do not equate the mores and customs of all societies as of equal worth.

Jay,

This article below from Britain would seem to debunk your argument that people simply tend to stick to their own.

As for <<Things like racial assimilation, gay rights, feminism etc have never been a part of advanced or futuristic schools of thought, they're just dumb ideas promoted by uncouth people.>> that is simply (your) opinion.

You present numbers like <<even in the U.S mixed race relationships make up less than one per cent of all pairings.>> Can you supply data that substantiates that figure of less than 1%.

<<Race mixing wasn't part of our past, that's been confirmed by DNA anaylsis>> I would expect you to point to some genuine material that supports that claim. Something more than Hitlers scientists proving the existence of the Aryan race.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245406/Jessica-Ennis-hailed-face-todays-Britain-census-figures-reveal-mixed-race-rise.html

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote:

"How could we possibly assume that a secular, involuntary, opportunistic and corrupt body such as the state has a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong?"

The state does not decide what is right and wrong. It decides what is permissible and non-permissible. That is a very different thing. Driving on the wrong side of the road and robbing a bank are both non-permissible. Driving on the wrong of the road is not wrong in a moral sense. However, it puts others in danger. Therefore the state has a right to ban it. FGM causes great harm to women. Those subjected to it do not have an opportunity to reject it. The state has a right to ban it. If you are an adult of sound mind who consciously wishes to harm yourself or commit suicide I think you have a right to do so. However, I think it reasonable that the state prevents people from harming others.

The democratic state is an imperfect body as are all other governments. However, I think it preferable to a monarch, dictator or religious leader. It is right that the state is secular. A person's religious beliefs or the absence of such beliefs should not be the business of the government. The secular state and the elimination of monarchy are great advances.

Dear Nhoj,

Of course there is a difference between MGM and FGM, the latter being more disgusting than the former.

As a result, I may perhaps still befriend or maintain social/professional/business relations with someone who conducted MGM on their boys, but not with someone who conducted FGM on their girls.

Boycotting perpetrators is legitimate, so is naming-and-shaming and denying them privileges, including for example welfare, health-care, aged-care, citizenship, perhaps even the protection of police and the legal recourse should someone do the same to them.

Criminal prosecution, however, is a different matter. The state may not legitimately prosecute anyone unless there is a victim who sought, or at least consented, to come under state protection. It is for example illegitimate to criminialise voluntary euthanasia because there is no such victim; or if Packer and Gyngell wish to break each other's teeth, then it should not be criminal to do so (but obviously, the state should not foot their medical bills); or if two rivals mutually agree to conduct a duel, consensually and without any pressure, then the survivor should not be charged with murder.

Naturally, if the girl that had undergone FGM sought the state's protection prior to the act, or if it is deemed on the balance of probabilities that she would have done so had she been given a chance, then it's a whole different story.

In summary, the state's roll is to protect its citizens who seek its protection, not to be their moral guardian.

All that I write has been carefully weighed and is based on one simple principle - non-violence.

Non-violence doesn't mean that others should not be allowed to be violent: it means that I should not be violent - but as the state claims to do violence in my name, it becomes my duty not to allow it.

Forcing one's ideas of morality on others without their consent, is a form of violence. Denying privileges, however, is not.