What happened when anti-FGM campaigner asked people in the street to sign a petition in favour of mutilating girls – London – News – London Evening Standard

42

A Londoner who suffered female genital mutilation has warned that political correctness is hampering the fight to stamp it out after asking people to sign a fake petition in its favou

Leyla Hussein, 32, said many were scared to speak out against FGM because they were worried about criticising another culture.

She decided to conduct an experiment to see “how crazy political correctness has become” but was left in tears by the end.

Approaching shoppers with the petition supporting FGM, she told them she wanted to protect her  “culture, traditions and rights”.

In only 30 minutes 19 people signed it with some saying they believed FGM was wrong but because it was part of Ms Hussein’s culture they would add their names. Only one person refused to sign.

Her campaign against FGM is the subject of a Channel 4 documentary, The Cruel Cut, which features the shocking scenes where she asks people to sign the petition.

Speaking after the experiment in Northampton, Ms Hussein broke down and said she was scared by people’s reactions.

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

She added: “FGM is not culture, it is violence. Stop using the culture word. This is happening to children. We are human beings, we can’t watch children being cut, I don’t care what culture you belong to.”

Ms Hussein, who is co-founder of the anti-FGM charity Daughters of Eve, is calling on the Home Office to take responsibility for drawing up an action plan to eliminate FGM in this country.

 

Written By: Anna Davis
continue to source article at standard.co.uk

42 COMMENTS

  1. Unbelievable!!

    Also unbelievable were many of the comments.

    ” As usual, the racist Sam Harris is circulating this piece to promote his cheerleading of state violence against Muslims.”

    This one was not only off topic, and off the mark but seemed to be the perfect example of PC gone amok

    Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..

    • In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

      Unbelievable!!

      Also unbelievable were many of the comments.

      Or ‘you’re not welcome here’. Typical racist meat-head drive-by. I despair for humanity, sometimes. Most of the times.

      Imagine a new Christian / Buddhist / scientologist cult making the practice mandatory. What would happen then. Why do we give Jews and Muslims a free pass on that issue?

    • In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

      Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..

      It’s hardly off topic to be concerned about any child having a right not to be mutilated without informed consent and absent any proven medical necessity. Though I agree FGM is the greater assault, the lesser assaults – justified by “culture” – help also to justify the greater assaults.

      You can’t be a little bit pregnant, and you can’t be a little bit against assaulting children.

      • In reply to #12 by Stevehill:

        In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

        Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..

        It’s hardly off topic to be concerned about any child having a right not to be mutilated without informed consent and absent any proven medical necessity. Though I agree FGM is the greater as…

        ” It’s hardly off topic to be concerned about any child having a right not to be mutilated without informed consent and absent any proven medical necessity “

        Yes it is. The topic was FGM, period.

          • In reply to #27 by Stevehill:

            In reply to #25 by Neodarwinian:

            I don’t think you get to decide what is and is not off topic.

            Most of us round here believe in free speech. You are proving to be a disappointment.

            ” What happened when anti-FGM campaigner asked people in the street to sign a petition in favour of mutilating girls – London – News – London Evening Standard “

            Do you read? The topic is clearly stated. Your ideology, men’s mutilation issues, and your proofs mean little to me, The topic is above and derailment is what you were doing.

          • In reply to #31 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #27 by Stevehill:

            In reply to #25 by Neodarwinian:

            I don’t think you get to decide what is and is not off topic.

            Most of us round here believe in free speech. You are proving to be a disappointment.

            ” What happened when anti-FGM campaigner asked people in the street to sign a petiti…

            It’s not off topic, it parallels the topic. Both are bad because of similar problems that the circumcisions can cause and for the unique problems that the biological differences bring into being. I’d rather see both go at the same time, but I’d be fine with focusing on FGM first because of the sexual inequality aspect that fuses itself into the whole thing (that’s just my opinion though… we have to start somewhere).

          • In reply to #31 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #27 by Stevehill:

            In reply to #25 by Neodarwinian:

            Do you read? The topic is clearly stated. Your ideology, men’s mutilation issues, and your proofs mean little to me, The topic is above and derailment is what you were doing.

            It would seem that someone who with increasing shrillness insists on a false dichotomy – an artificial classification – and on that bases a strident delineation of what the topic is and what is and is not allowed to be discussed, presents the portrait of an ideologue if not a demagogue.

            What’s bad for the goose is bad for the gander. Lets join hands moms and dads and institutions and lets put an end to this unconscionable
            savage psychological and physical lifelong maiming of all our children.

          • In reply to #31 by Neodarwinian:
            “Your ideology, men’s mutilation issues, and your proofs mean little to me, The topic is above and derailment is what you were doing.”

            I have pointed out quite clearly that a culture which accepts mutilation without consent of male children is necessarily a culture which is on pretty shaky ground in criticising mutilation of female children.

            We are, collectively, enablers. We should face up to our collective responsibility for that. You cannot rationally say that a little bit of
            child abuse is OK. You have to be a religious nutjob to hold such a view.

            I really don’t care whether you agree that is on topic or not.

  2. Ms. Hussein has given a TEDx presentation about the organization mentioned in the OP, Daughters of Eve, and the good work they do. The presentation itself is a bit pedestrian and the lights having been turned off makes it hard for viewers to see her, but she does say some important things about her own life and FGM generally. It’s probably worth seeing their FB page, mentioned in the presentation, and supporting her cause too.

    Somewhat related, there’s a short film about FGM in Kurdistan that helped change the law there and helped reduce it by 60 percent. Grassroots campaigning can work!

  3. “Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..”

    That might be because they both involve the mutilation of the genitals of infants and young children for religious, cultural, or ideological reasons.

    There are no medical reasons to systematically mutilate the genitals of our children – whatever their gender.

    Anvil.

  4. New report going to the House of Commons. Maybe the UK police will raise the number of prosecutions from zero.

    The report – Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in the UK – will be launched at the House of Commons on Monday by the Royal Colleges of Midwifery, Nursing and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Unite union and Equality Now.

  5. Sad to see this, especially as a resident of Northampton, but I honestly can’t say I’m surprised.

    I can understand why people said it was okay, simply because we are now too scared to stand up to barbaric Islamic (use the word ‘cultural’ if it makes you feel better) practices in this country, in case we get shot, bombed or beheaded – or locked up for being ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’…

    It truly is a sick world we live in – I just wish I’d been in the town centre when this survey was being taken…

    Just a quick note – I am fully aware that some Christian communities in Africa also commit these crimes against their women, but because it is a predominately Muslim practice, we (mostly our governments) are too scared to speak up about it (and more specifically, DO something about it).

    If it was JUST Christians doing it, it would have been stamped out long ago…

    The Wikipedia entry for this barbarity gives you a good idea of where it is most prevalent…

    Prevalence of female genital mutilation

  6. This isn’t political correctness, it’s cowardice.

    Political correctness was a good thing in helping to highlight and root out sexist, racist, thoughtless and offensive language, of which there was a great deal prior to its emergence and adoption; although it has to be said that certain reactionary individuals and sections of society disapproved of it and still do, but I suspect that that’s because they didn’t understand its purpose or couldn’t see anything wrong in calling people wogs, niggers, kikes or jids, and so on, and probably still don’t because they’re incorrigible.

    No, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, there’s now a grave danger of intimidation stemming from certain quarters, and it needs to be resisted.

    • In reply to #9 by Stafford Gordon:

      This isn’t political correctness, it’s cowardice.

      indeed although nowadays the two are inseperable.

      my problem with “political correctness” is who decides what’s correct? because it’s political there’s always an element of consensus opinion, therefore what do we imagine was “politically correct” in 1930s Germany?

      It does make me sad to see that in reality, most humans care so much more about being on the right side of opinion (which these days just means not an islamophobe) than the plight of innocent victims of that opinion. Better a little girl is forcefully held down and brutally assulted in a way that will leave her physically and emotionally damaged for life as well as inflicting probably the most intense pain that she could ever experience then I get accused of not liking something a muslim did. got my reputation to think of

      I shall watch this documentry, maybe through my paws but still need to watch it

  7. Unfortunately, this story doesn’t surprise me at all. In the UK, cultural relativism has won as the dominant philosophy. People run scared of being deemed racist or cultural imperialists or, worse, Islamophobes. As a result, long held principles about what constitutes right and wrong are being trodden into the ground by groups who to not have the same qualms.

    The result is that vulnerable young women who have an absolute right to our protection are not getting it. Their human rights are being ignored because of our cowardice and reluctance to confront ignorance and backward cultural practices.

  8. @Neodarwinian “Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..”

    This is because male genital mutilation(MGM) is the main source of cultural legitimization for the female genital mutilation.
    MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to accidents.
    Women are still able to have sex and bare children when they have accidents due to these barbaric traditions borne out of superstition.

    So talking male genital mutilation(MGM) is definitely not off topic, it is a fundamental part of the issue.

    • In reply to #13 by igor.fetir:

      @Neodarwinian “Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..”

      This is because male genital mutilation(MGM) is the main source of cultural legitimization for the female genital mutilation.
      MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to…

      What the hell are you talking about?!? Thousands?!? Main source of legitimization?!?

      Regardless, off topic. FGM was the topic and still is the topic.

  9. Do these people have ANY imagination at all?The details of what goes on during FGM should shock and appall.Any ‘culture’ that condones violence against innocent children should not be countenanced.And anyone who thinks such a monstrous act is acceptable because of ‘culture’ needs her head read.

  10. FGM is appalling.

    However, my “science head” is critical of this “experiment”. As far as I know the default mode for a human is cooperation. If you ask someone for a signature on a petition, lots of people will just sign. This “experiment” didn’t control for “brain off, just be nice and sign”.
    It didn’t control for the subjects actually knowing what FGM was. It didn’t control for a lot of things.

    I think it was a politically manipulative stunt for a TV program. I happen to agree with the cause, but I would criticise a similar stunt that criticised something I was in favour of. I’m sure the same could be pulled for anti-euthanasia, or anti-abortion causes. Rationalists should campaign for more science in policy and politics as well as being part of the fray.

  11. At its core, the problem is that people are terrified of criticizing someone’s religious beliefs, with “culture” being the code word here, no matter what crimes are committed in its name. FGM is yet another side effect of the real problem. If people think god wants them to do this to their children, no laws will ever really solve the problem, though it should be done, for certain. The real issue is the larger society’s fear of simply saying god doesn’t exist so there is no justification for violating someone’s human rights in their name. The real disease needs to be confronted directly — not by outlawing religion — but by educating and by shaming people into realizing the cost of being too afraid to stand up to this mental disease that causes so much damage, both to children and adults as well.

  12. In reply to #9 by Stafford Gordon:

    Political correctness was a good thing in helping to highlight and root out sexist, racist, thoughtless and offensive language, of which there was a great deal prior to its emergence and adoption; although it has to be said that certain reactionary individuals and sections of society disapproved of it and still do, but I suspect that that’s because they didn’t understand its purpose or couldn’t see anything wrong in calling people wogs, niggers, kikes or jids, and so on, and probably still don’t because they’re incorrigible.

    I agree. As does English comedian Stewart Lee. This is what he had to say on the radio panel show Heresy about the statement, agreed with by 84% of the studio audience, ‘political correctness has gone mad’

    Youtube: Stewart Lee on Political Correctness

    It really worries me that 84% of this audience agree with this statement, because the kind of people that say it’s political correctness gone mad are usually using that phrase as a cover action to attack minorities and people that they disagree with. I’m of an age where I can see the difference that political correctness has made. When I was four years old, my grandfather drove me around Birmingham, where the Tories had just fought an election campaign saying “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” And he drove me around saying “This is where all the coons and niggers and jungle bunnies live.” And I remember being at school in the early 80s and my teacher when he read the register, instead of saying the name of the one Asian boy in the class, he would say “Is the black spot in?”

    All these things have gradually been eroded by political correctness, which seems to me to be about a kind of institutionalized politeness, at its worst. And if there is some fallout from this, which means that someone in an office might get in trouble one day for saying something that someone was a bit unsure about, because they couldn’t decide if it was sexist or homophobic or racist, it’s a small price to pay for the massive benefits and improvements to the quality of life for millions of people that political correctness has made.

    It’s a whole, it’s a complete lie that allows the right, which basically controls the media now and international politics, to make people on the left that are concerned about the way people are represented look like they’re killjoys.

    The 84% of you in this room that have agreed with this phrase, you’re like those people that turn around and go “You know who the most oppressed minority in Britain today are? White, middle-class men!” You’re a bunch of idiots.

    • In reply to #18 by Katy Cordeth:

      Sorry, Katy, I loathe this lazy maligning of other peoples’ motives on scant evidence. Just because one lot of political correctness was magnificent and highly effective, doesn’t mean that all subsequent political correctness is equally worthwhile.

      The reason the first lot was so effective was because it had widespread support, most probably. The reason this second lot is having a more troubled time (presuming it to be about multiculturalism) is that it may be being co-opted by savvy players a little too often, or that it simply has less merit, or that people can see that individuals are suffering at the hands of communities that have an undue, undemocratic, and utterly unsupported-in-law, malign influence on them.

      The state’s moral and legal duty is to its individual members. The 84% may stand with the oppressed not an “oppressed community” and its unelected male spokesperson. Lee doesn’t know and should not presume to.

      This time, for once, though I love him dearly, fnck Stewart Lee.

  13. In reply to SaganTheCat: 17.

    I submit that no one needs to say when something is politically correct, because if your awareness of the zeitgeist is sufficiently well atuned, like science, PC is self correcting.

    If on the other hand someone is a political or social troglodyte the chances are that they’ll misenterpret just about everything under the sun anyway, including that which is no longer acceptable.

    If they’re religious fundamentalists their misunderstandings will most probably extend to the very sun itself.

  14. I don’t think this reflects PC so much as just plain stupidity. Some people, unfortunately, are easily manipulated and don’t think critically. I will never sign a petition from someone on the street unless i know the issue already. It’s so easy to manipulate those things so that on a quick read on the street it sounds like it’s supporting X when in reality it is doing the opposite. In the US state where I live (California) this happens all the time. It’s possible to subvert the legislative process and put laws directly to the people to vote on but to start you need to gather a lot of signatures. And the way the proposition people do it is they word things very deceptively. The “forest preservation” proposition is about letting logging companies chop down more trees. The “clean skies” initiative is about allowing more forms of carbon spewing pollution, etc.

    My guess is you could just as easily manipulate people to sign things that are very right wing, e.g. laws that gave away fundamental civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

    • In reply to #20 by Red Dog:

      I don’t think this reflects PC so much as just plain stupidity. Some people, unfortunately, are easily manipulated and don’t think critically. I will never sign a petition from someone on the street unless i know the issue already. It’s so easy to manipulate those things so that on a quick read on…

      You’re right. Nobody should ever sign anything in the street. Why would anybody want to give complete strangers a sample of their signature anyway.

    • In reply to #20 by Red Dog:

      I don’t think this reflects PC so much as just plain stupidity. Some people, unfortunately, are easily manipulated and don’t think critically.

      What would you call it in the case of someone with degrees in Philosophy, Law, Biology, and Genetics from, respectively, Duke, Harvard and Dartmouth with professorships at Duke, Stanford, and Vanderbilt who is “a leading scholar on the ethical, legal, and social implications of biosciences and emerging technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience and behavioral genetics” appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues who, when asked if a culture which blinded some of its children by plucking out their eyes at birth was needlessly diminishing human well-being if they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition answered: ” you could never say that they were wrong”

  15. The people’s willingness to sign her petition have echoes of the Stanley Milgram experiments of people compromising their moral sense in favor of placating an authority figure. In this case, the role of the authority is the preservation of cultural values.

    Milgram showed us a very disagreeable side of our human psyche. But by doing so he equipped us with knowledge that we can use to be aware when this kind of thing is happening and put a stop to it.

    Hopefully, people will realize that this lesson also applies to traditions and religious/ cultural values.

  16. In reply to #3 by Michael Austin:

    I think that the genital mutilation of both sexes is the worst offense that we still allow religions and cultures to get away with.

    The World Health Organisation and other groups might take issue with you over that.

    The Facts About HIV and Male Circumcision

    While there is strong evidence that circumcised men are less vulnerable to HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse than non-circumcised men, the practice often evokes harsh criticism from either those who either disapprove of circumcision or question the validity of early research.

    A series of randomized controlled trials conducted in Africa from 2005 to 2007 have shown that male circumcision can reduce the risk of vaginal-to-penile transmission by anywhere from 51% to 60%.

    Based on the conclusiveness of these trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) issued recommendations in 2007 stating:

    “Male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV in men…(but) should never replace known methods of HIV prevention.”

    In reply to #13 by igor.fetir:

    @Neodarwinian “Many people got off topic and onto male circumcision pretty easily also..”

    This is because male genital mutilation(MGM) is the main source of cultural legitimization for the female genital mutilation.
    MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to accidents. Women are still able to have sex and bare children when they have accidents due to these barbaric traditions borne out of superstition.

    So talking male genital mutilation(MGM) is definitely not off topic, it is a fundamental part of the issue.

    You’re absolutely right that male circumcision is the principal provider of cultural legitimacy in the West for female genital mutilation. This is because of the way the two are conflated. Uninformed people will just assume FGM and male circumcision are equivalent.

    That’s why the term female genital mutilation is preferred over female circumcision, because male circumcision and FGM are in most cases not remotely comparable. People in the West are generally comfortable with male circumcision because it’s routinely carried out even on non-Jews/Muslims, particularly in America, where it’s an entire, extremely profitable, industry. When they hear the term female circumcision, they wrongly assume it’s essentially the same procedure: removal of a bit of skin. This is the misperception opponents of female genital mutilation have to fight against.

    That isn’t to say male circumcision is fine; just that FGM is so much worse. You only serve to cloud the issue when you say ‘MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to accidents.’

    I’m sure there are instances when a procedure has been botched and the penis completely removed, although one imagines most cases of male children, or adults, losing their genitalia or even their life following circumcision have to do with infection setting in due to unsanitary operating conditions, rather than because of a clumsily wielded izmel. If this is true for males, statistics dictate it has to be the same for females.

    I know it’s odd to think of a female losing her genitals since most of our stuff is on the inside, and there will usually still be an… aperture, if you like, and the outward appearance that everything is mostly unchanged, even if infection has left her unable to enjoy coitus or produce offspring.

    Even if the clitoredectomy — an even more accurate description than female genital mutilation in my view as there’s little doubt what’s being spoken about — is ‘successful’, there are no complications and the ability to bear children isn’t compromised, I’m not sure how this would constitute a lesser evil than a botched circumcision in which the penis is lost and the unfortunate male left unable to procreate. Would this man’s situation be worse than the woman’s just because she can still be employed as a breeding machine? Anyway, if his gonads are still in working order, I see no biological reason why he couldn’t eventually become a father.

    Probably off-topic, but I’ve never understood how those who undergo male-to-female gender reassignment surgery get to experience sexual pleasure afterwards. I mean, removal of the testicles essentially creates a eunuch, and when the penis is turned inside out to simulate a vagina, it has to be robbed of most of its sensitivity. Do the female hormones and other drugs given to the patient somehow recreate or replicate the role their… stuff used to play? Or are they sacrificing physical sensation for the emotional satisfaction of being the gender they believe they were meant to be? As I say, I’ve never gotten it, and I apologize if I’m being insensitive.

    • Katy Cordeth, You need to understand the following important point;

      The right to ones body is an innate right and there is to be ABSOLUTELY no bargaining of that right with potential abusers!

      Shout out all the supposed benefits of circumcision till you run out of air but the moment it no longer involves your body,
      you free agency stops!

      In reply to #24 by Katy Cordeth:

      People in the West are generally comfortable with male circumcision because it’s routinely carried out even on non-Jews/Muslims, particularly in America, where it’s an entire, extremely profitable, industry. When they hear the term female circumcision, they wrongly assume it’s essentially the same procedure: removal of a bit of skin. This is the misperception opponents of female genital mutilation have to fight against.

      I’m sure I informed you in another article on how there are MULTIPLE FORMS OF FGM in practice!
      One of which only removes the clitoral hood! Are you seriously suggesting that FGM only involving the removal of the clitoral hood
      is permissible? Speaking of just “a bit of skin”, in comparison to removing the foreskin of the penis, the clitoral hood really is just “a bit of skin”.
      I wonder whether you read the article at all because it gives an example of how belittling terms can be used to justify barbarity.

      ““I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

      Katy, is it possible that the real reason why the foreskin comes across to you, as just a bit of skin, is because you don’t have a penis?
      I know, I know it must seem crazy to you, but Its just not that crazy to suggest that, someone who doesn’t have penis might not know what its like to have a penis…

      Just saying…

      That isn’t to say male circumcision is fine; just that FGM is so much worse. You only serve to cloud the issue when you say ‘MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to accidents.’

      How did he cloud the issue? He in fact brought clarity to this issue by pointing out the hypocrisy of the west for having tolerance for MGM.
      Your knee jerk reaction is likely due to your own lack of concern for forcing male circumcision on males.
      So whenever someone brings up the topic, I assume you instinctively fear that, the lack of concern you and others have for male circumcision will also spread to FGM.

      I’m sure there are instances when a procedure has been botched and the penis completely removed, although one imagines most cases of male children, or adults, losing their genitalia or even their life following circumcision have to do with infection setting in due to unsanitary operating conditions, rather than because of a clumsily wielded izmel. If this is true for males, statistics dictate it has to be the same for females.
      I know it’s odd to think of a female losing her genitals since most of our stuff is on the inside, and there will usually still be an… aperture, if you like, and the outward appearance that everything is mostly unchanged, even if infection has left her unable to enjoy coitus or produce offspring.
      Even if the clitoredectomy — an even more accurate description than female genital mutilation in my view as there’s little doubt what’s being spoken about — is ‘successful’, there are no complications and the ability to bear children isn’t compromised, I’m not sure how this would constitute a lesser evil than a botched circumcision in which the penis is lost and the unfortunate male left unable to procreate. Would this man’s situation be worse than the woman’s just because she can still be employed as a breeding machine? Anyway, if his gonads are still in working order, I see no biological reason why he couldn’t eventually become a father.

      Btw clitoridoctomy is an inaccurate description of the FGM.
      First of all its not the clitoris that’s removed its the clitoris glan.
      The clitoris as a whole is actually quite large and surrounds over the bulb of vestibule which surrounds over the vaginal opening.

      Clitoris anatomy labeled

      And please remember that there are multiple forms of FGM in practice, to simply substitute the term FGM with clitoridoctomy, is to callously ignore the other
      forms of FGM. By such substitutions, one stands to potentially insinuate that, its only to be considered FGM, if its a clitoridoctomy and could also be misconceived as an act
      of condoning the other forms of abuse. There is to be no tolerance for this abuse whether we are talking about the horrific total FGM procedure or
      whether we are talking about just the clitoral hood being removed. We do not have the right to bargain with other people’s bodies.

      [Last section removed by moderator]

  17. In reply to #13 by igor.fetir:

    MGM is even worse, it causes thousands of boys to lose their entire genitals due to accidents.

    While I share your disapproval of MGM, I feel this statement needs a citation. It sounds like an hysterical, hyperbolic and apocryphal rant. Where are these “thousands”?

    Steve

    EDIT: I see others beat me to it. And it’s not that far off-topic.

  18. In reply to #27 by Stevehill:

    In reply to #25 by Neodarwinian:

    I don’t think you get to decide what is and is not off topic.

    Most of us round here believe in free speech. You are proving to be a disappointment.

    ” What happened when anti-FGM campaigner asked people in the street to sign a petition in favour of mutilating girls – London – News – London Evening Standard “

    Do you read? The topic is clearly stated. Your ideology, men’s mutilation issues, and your proofs mean little to me, The topic is above and derailment is what you were doing.<


    Your display of cognitive dissonance on this issue is quite frankly astounding, as is your constant use of ‘ideology’ as ad hom. The phrase ‘your proofs mean little to me‘ borders on the religious.

    These are not ‘mens mutilation issues’. There are no ‘men’ being mutilated here.

    There is no rational argument for the mutilation the genitals of any infant or child. None. Yet you continue to defend the indefensible with ill thought out arguments of equivalence whilst attempting to terminate the natural course of the debate by narrowing the very terms of the debate itself.

    The US has transformed the genital mutilation of infants into a normalised medical procedure. This itself – the removal of an organ from the genitals of an infant for cultural or religious reasons – is indefensible.

    It is indefensible that the US then exports this cultural mutilation of infants as a process of its hegemony.

    Our argument – I should say ‘my’ argument – is that the normalised genital mutilation of infants in the US is a pillar upon which rests the genital mutilation of infants – of both genders – in the greater world. MGM supports and legitimises FGM.

    It’s time to call it what it is – it is the mutilation of the sexual organs of infants and children – it is child abuse. It is assault.

    The quicker we deal with our own issues surrounding ‘cultural sensitivity’ the nearer the cessation of the genital mutilation of infants and children in the greater world.

    It is difficult to tell others to stop mutilating ‘their’ children whilst we continue to mutilate ‘our own’.

    Anvil.

    • In reply to #36 by Anvil:

      It is difficult to tell others to stop mutilating ‘their’ children whilst we continue to mutilate ‘our own’.

      It almost seems to be a little bit hypocritical or condescending.

      Robust national legislation protecting children would solve this issue I reckon. Citizens would no longer need to fuss over who became offended the most, relatively speaking. All children would be recognized equally, whether the dominant fashion is FGM or circumcision.

      The best way to educate aspirational Islamists would be to remove the privileges we allow to Christianism. Little wonder they would envy that degree of political clout. Protecting kids universally is the only viable solution.

      • In reply to #37 by Len Walsh:

        In reply to #36 by Anvil:

        It is difficult to tell others to stop mutilating ‘their’ children whilst we continue to mutilate ‘our own’.

        It almost seems to be a little bit hypocritical or condescending.

        Robust national legislation protecting children would solve this issue I reckon. Citizens would…

        Yes, Len, I agree. All children’s rights – recognised equally.

        Anvil.

    • In reply to #36 by Anvil:

      >

      Our argument – I should say ‘my’ argument -

      Not to worry, you had it right the first time: it is indeed **our ** -those of us who value reason, science and the evidence based- argument

  19. Moderators’ message

    If you see a comment you think breaks the rules, please simply flag it for our attention; but for the time being it is not our view that the comments on MGM are inappropriate on this thread.

    May we also ask users to keep disagreements civil and thoughtful. Thank you.

    Thank you.

    The mods

  20. “Political correctness” is just a cover for ignorance. If these people had been invited to know the brutal details of FGM, they likely would have said, “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know. Just let me sign your little petition so you’ll leave me out of it.” It’s easy to brush something off when you don’t allow yourself to become incensed.

    I hope Ms. Hussein won’t give up. Some people just won’t listen unless you SCREAM. This reminds me of the catholic church and how much it took before people started waking up. Unfortunately, ignorance and stupidity rule the masses.

Leave a Reply