Warning to the Weary...my thoughts on FGM

With the onset of globalization, the industrialized Western World is meeting a human rights battle over female genital mutilation (FGM) with what some scholars claim to be “backward” Middle Eastern and African cultures. Albeit, these practices are human rights violations; crossing the line, where outsiders must substantiate change in sovereign nations. Religious practice or not, most female circumcisions are pressured and/or forced onto minors under unsanitary conditions, maiming young girls for life, sometimes unfairly removing reproductive rights, as well. Signatories of CEDAW have pledged to protect women’s and children’s rights and should not close their eyes to the great injustices occurring to human beings.

The definition of a human rights violation (according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is particularly complex here because FGM reduces equality among gender; and simultaneously, those practicing FGM claim a right to engage in cultural ritual. (Steiner) The gruesome procedure involves removing part or all or a young girl’s clitoris. In severe cases, their vaginas are sewn up, the flesh shrunk with corrosives, and their legs can be tied up for up to forty days while healing, leaving a small reed or piece of silver in place to release urine and menstrual blood.

In Sub-Saharan African culture, a woman without circumcision is not considered marriage material, because she is seen as unfit and impure. However, it is important to note that in a study of Saudi Arabian men, most would prefer a natural woman and oppose the practice. More often than not, FGM is not performed under sterile conditions, with no anesthetic. Infections are common during child birth later on and increased blood loss leading to death. Women are twice as likely to die during childbirth and three times more likely to give birth to a stillborn child. (humaniststudies.org) Lack of access to medical care and endangering the welfare of mother and child violate fundamental human rights.

Not only is FGM not performed under sterile conditions, but the argument that female circumcision is mandated by God or Allah is wholeheartedly false. An Egyptian high court ruled on the practice in 1997, stating that nowhere in the Qur’an is it validated or a right under Islamic law. Only through oral tradition has a story about Mohammed been passed down to the 21^st century. Um Habibah was an ancient woman who circumcised female slaves and Mohammed supposedly told her he would allow this saying, “Cut slightly without exaggeration.” (Robinson) The haste interpretations of this passage have affected the rights of women and children throughout the centuries.

The issue at hand is if CEDAW leaders have the sovereignty to mandate laws regarding female genital mutilation; and even if there really is a human rights violation – how would laws be enforced? It is certain that this ritual would be continued behind closed doors, possibly encouraging unsanitary conditions without the monitoring of trained medical professionals. The United Nations Charter proclaims the purpose of the United Nations: “to achieve international co-operation…in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” (Steiner, 1365-1376) Regarding this proclamation, signatories have pledged to take actions to enforce this purpose. Therefore, female genital mutilation warrants action because it demeans women and violates human rights.

Female genital mutilation dates back centuries to ancient civilizations in patriarchal societies to suppress female sexuality. Even in ancient Rome, it was socially acceptable to wear rings through the labia majora to prevent premarital intercourse. Even Christians, particularly the Skoptozy sect in Russia perform the most severe FGM to ensure forever perceived virginity. (Dorkenoo, 29) There are varying forms of FGM, from circumcision (just the removal of the prepuce of the clitoris) to progressively more severe categories. The classifications include circumcision, excision (partial or total removal of the clitoris); infibulations; intermediate infibulations; and other forms involving just scarring or even a hymenectomy. (Dorkenoo, 5-8) These practices are horrific to Western culture, yet common practice in much of Africa and the Middle East.

The history of the sovereignty battle began almost twenty years ago when the World Health Organization passed a resolution urging participating governments “to adopt appropriate policies and strategies in order to eradicate female circumcision.” As part of the United Nations Millennium goals, promoting gender equality and empowering women is number three on the list. FGM is indeed a human rights violation because it breaks general principles of international law issued by the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which characterizes FC/FGM as a form of violence (Rahman, 19). There are also countless international law documents such as the Program of Action of the Cairo Conference and Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action; proving these are customs and international standards (Rahman, 19).

FGM violates the following human rights: (Part B of the question)

1. “The right to be free from all forms of discrimination against women.” (Rahman, 20)

(FGM includes the distinction of gender; the removal of a healthy organ without the capacity to consent; violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Charter; Women’s Convention; Civil and Political Rights Covenant; Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Covenant; Banjul Charter; American Convention; and the European Convention.) (Rahman, 22)

2. “The rights to life and physical integrity, including freedom from violence.”

(Previously mentioned treaties, also including the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women; Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; and the Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women) (Rahman, 24)

3. “The right to health.” (Rahman, 26)

(According to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development) (Rahman, 27)

4. “The rights of the child.” (Rahman, 28)

(Children’s Rights Convention; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child)

(Rahman, 29)

5. “Right to culture.”

(Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation; Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice)

6. “Rights of minorities.” (Rahman, 34)

(Civil and Political Rights Covenant; Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities) (Rahman, 35)

7. “Rights to religious freedom.”

(American Convention; European Convention; Declaration on Religious Tolerance) (Rahman, 37) Even though critics might claim that the last human right would be violated by eradicating female genital mutilation; that is untrue if minors are put into danger and one’s natural human rights are infringed upon. Religious rights are not absolute. (Rahman, 38)

Some countries have taken active measures to diminish this practice. For example, in 2003, Great Britain made it illegal to take a child to another country to undergo FGM. Many immigrants were going to their homelands on vacation to have the procedure done. A special investigation unit was even formed, which has successfully intervened in over twenty “family trips.” This is a great example of a solution that westernized nations can use without overstepping sovereign boundaries. Complete prohibition is controversial because even in Sudan where infibulations was outlawed and clitoridectomy is condoned; there is still an 89% rate of severe FGM. (Rahman)

There are numerous solutions to eradicating FGM that may be possible through pressure of the international community. They include ratifying international law documents which promote human rights; enforcing laws protecting women and children; undertaking legal reform; promoting equality; and changing family law practices in FGM areas (marriage, divorce, women’s rights, etc.) Also punishing parents, creating new crime legislation, and prosecuting individuals are a step in the right direction (Part A of the question). Lastly there should be new regulatory measures that require medical care at the very least, allowing NGO’s to operate without government interference, and ensuring there are reproductive health services available to women in rural areas. (Dorkenoo, 61-71)

Also, there are numerous alternatives to female genital mutilation. A mild form of female circumcision can be performed in a medical center or even in a village home, marking the clitoris at puberty with a spiritual ceremony following. There are also teachings promoting Circumcision through Words, a primarily spiritual experience, without cutting altogether.

Finally, one must look at the three levels of guilty parties in FGM: parents; doctors; and government. It is only fair to prosecute the individuals and not prosecute the guilty governments; but rather reform government (Part A of the question). The lack of dignity and sheer immedicable wounds with FGM is abhorrent to the modern world. The disfigurement, atrocity, and relinquishing of human rights is a clear stake in the advancement of civil liberties and civil rights.