As we mentioned yesterday, the government is hoping to introduce new laws to protect victims of FGM, after issuing a consultation on the matter in July of this year.
They have now published the consultation outcome which responds to that proposal.
The response to the consultation was carried out by the Ministry of Justice, and runs to 17 pages. It highlights the background to the report, a summary of the responses, responses to questions raised in the report and the next steps post the consultation.
It’s an interesting document which explains the different viewpoints on the proposal for a civil protection order. Some respondents felt that the current criminal sanctions were not enough, others felt that the Children Act’s prohibited steps order was already effective at preventing parents from removing children from the jurisdiction to undergo FGM and others felt that a specific civil law measure would offer child welfare professionals a clear pathway to safeguarding children and supporting them within the family unit.
It’s a complex area, combining cultural norms and standards which are not always beneficial to empowering children or allowing them to speak out without fear of devastating repercussions. A must read report, which highlights many of the nuances in this field and offers a good overview.
Researching Reform 
Personally speaking I could never support FG surgery nor for that matter male genital surgery. However, the latter is practiced without interference by one Middle Eastern religious group which would be most upset if the UN or EU showed signs of interfering.
There is an argument to be made that campaigning against FGM is a form of neo-colonialism.
There is also the argument that the targeted perpetrators do not have the political juice to fend off this campaign or the political muscle to ward off such an initiative.
So is this another instance of “might is right” (i.e. the nature of strength, the right of conquerors and the falsehood of natural rights and human rights etc) ?
isn’t this indirectly a test for Western liberalism and tolerance ?
LikeLike
To my mind that’s a bit like saying we should accept the view that killing children to exorcise demons from their souls in witchcraft is acceptable, or that genocide is also acceptable. The point here is that these things are happening on our shores, and as a country with our own laws, we are entitled to apply them and ask that those who reside here to live by them. We are not seeking in this context to outlaw those things abroad – plenty of charities which include people from the cultures where these practices stem from are busy doing that. And when we go abroad, we have to apply by the laws of other countries where we visit, laws which do not sit well with our own; for example some countries in the UAE where women are not allowed to drive and certain clothing must be worn, so why play the liberal card? And as for circumcision, I’m also against that, and I am half Muslim and half Jewish.
LikeLike
Judism; Torah. Genisis 17: 9-14 The Covenant of Circumcision.
Muslims; Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur’an but is highlighted in the Sunnah, the Prophet Mohammed’s recorded words.
Other peoples also practice circumcision.
It’s hard to go against peoples religious beliefs!
LikeLike
I’ve got no problem with disagreeing, as you know 🙂 The founder of Israel did not circumcise his son, he thought outside of the box, and I love that about him. We don’t have to adhere to outdated rules made before science could inform us.
LikeLike