Thousands of girls mutilated in Britain

The NHS is offering to reverse female circumcision amid concerns that there are 500 victims a year with no prosecutions
Girl in shadow

(Guzelian)

Girls are brainwashed into believing circumcision to be a cultural, and, in some cases, religious obligation that should be kept secret
Richard Kerbaj

The NHS is to advertise free operations to reverse female circumcisions, with experts warning that each year more than 500 British girls have their genitals mutilated.

Despite having been outlawed in 1985, female circumcision is still practised in British African communities, in some cases on girls as young as 5. Police have been unable to bring a single prosecution even though they suspect that community elders are being flown from the Horn of Africa to carry out the procedures.

The advertisement will appear from next month on a Somali satellite TV station much viewed in Britain. It features Juliet Albert, a midwife who does the reverse operations, and promises, in English and Somali, confidentiality for victims of female genital mutilation.

The advertisement was expected to help to undermine demand for girls to be circumcised, and to popularise the reversal procedure, Ms Albert said. Thousands of such operations have been carried out at specialist clinics and hospitals around Britain and demand is growing slowly.

Female circumcision, which is done for various reasons, such as religious and cultural traditions, can cause severe health complications including infections and psychological problems. The procedure, predominantly carried out on girls aged between 5 and 12, can range from the removal of the clitoris to the removal of all the exterior parts of the vagina, which is then sewn up.

A study by the Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development (Forward), estimated that 66,000 women living in England and Wales had been circumcised, most before leaving their country of origin. The government-funded research also found that more than 7,000 girls were at a high risk of being subjected to genital mutilation in Britain.

Sarah McCulloch, of the Agency for Culture Change Management UK, said that every year more than 500 British girls were having circumcisions. “A lot of them are done in the UK, but some still travel overseas,” she said.

She said that a code of silence in Britain’s African communities had allowed circumcisions to continue and prevented arrests. The unqualified female elders, known as “house doctors” because they act in secret in a family home, are flown into the country.

“What the communities do is they gather together and collect money to pay for the ticket for a ‘doctor’ to come from Somalia, Sudan, or whatever,” she told The Times. “And when she arrives here, she goes to a house and has the girls brought to her.”

While Scotland Yard is understood to have made investigations into female circumcision in the UK, and offered a £20,000 reward for information, no one has been successfully prosecuted for carrying out the procedure.

Detective Constable Jason Morgan, from Scotland Yard’s Project Azure, denied that police were complacent. “We don’t bury our heads in the sand and say it’s not going on,” he said.

It is illegal to take a person abroad for the operation but no one has been prosecuted for this either.

Ms McCulloch said that girls were brainwashed into believing circumcision to be a cultural, and, in some cases, religious obligation that should be kept secret. “It is something they simply do not discuss — if they do they’d be seen as betraying their family and their community and culture,” she said. “I know many girls who want to accuse their parents but can’t. They don’t want to take their parents to court.”

Waris Dirie, a former UN envoy for the prevention of female genital mutilation, said that it had no justification. Ms Dirie is a victim of the procedure and it haunts her to this day. “Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with tradition, religion or culture. It is the most cynical form of child abuse and a crime that has to be punished,” she told The Times.

Ms McCulloch said that men were becoming more vocal in opposition to female circumcision. “I’ve talked to some fathers who’ve made clear to their wives that they don’t want this done to their daughters — only for them to go out and come back to find their girls circumcised,” she said.

Lynette Parvez, head teacher of Kelmscott School in Walthamstow, northeast London, said that several teachers there would soon be trained to detect victims of female circumcision, and pupils at risk. Experts believe that most of the procedures are done during summer holidays when the girls have enough time to recover without suspicion about their absence.

While Ms Parvez is unaware of any cases at her school, which serves many pupils of African origin, she said that she had been shocked and appalled to hear that female circumcisions were taking place in the UK.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5913979.ece

Although the Times is too politically correct to mention Islam in the same sentence as genital mutilation, it is overwhelmingly and Islamic problem.

Ahmad, ibn Naquib al-Misir, Umdat al-Salik in the Reliance of the Traveller,at e4.3 says that circumscision is obligatory for both men and women.

Hanbalis say that circumscision of women is not required, but is sunna. Hanafis consider it a 'mere courtesy to the husband.'

In the violent misogynistic world of Islam however, women having much of a say about what happens is very unrealistic.

You do what you are told, or you risk getting burnt with acid, set on fire, beaten stabbed, honor killed. You only need a few of these things to happen every so often for there to be enough fear instilled in other women to do what they are told by Islamic men.

Why just girls? Let's mutilate everybody's genitals.

There goes the problem of teenage pregnancy, promiscueity, and 90% of the advertisement/entertainment industry.

Hitchens makes the point with male circumcision that it's also as abhorrent as female circumcision particularly when carried out strictly according to religious instruction.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 10:53am:

Hitchens makes the point with male circumcision that it's also as abhorrent as female circumcision particularly when carried out strictly according to religious instruction.

I would get rid of them both, and let the child decide when its 18 if it wants to be circumscised as a male. Otherwise, leave things as they are. We don't live in the desert anymore and we have running water.

Calanen wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 10:53am: Hitchens makes the point with male circumcision that it's also as abhorrent as female circumcision particularly when carried out strictly according to religious instruction. I would get rid of them both, and let the child decide when its 18 if it wants to be circumscised as a male. Otherwise, leave things as they are. We don't live in the desert anymore and we have running water.

Agreed, religion and/or culture should get their noses out of babies and children's genitals, it's absolutely disgraceful. The only time that area should be touched is when there is a medical issue.

jordan484 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 3:00pm:

Calanen wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 1:33pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 10:53am: Hitchens makes the point with male circumcision that it's also as abhorrent as female circumcision particularly when carried out strictly according to religious instruction. I would get rid of them both, and let the child decide when its 18 if it wants to be circumscised as a male. Otherwise, leave things as they are. We don't live in the desert anymore and we have running water. Agreed, religion and/or culture should get their noses out of babies and children's genitals, it's absolutely disgraceful. The only time that area should be touched is when there is a medical issue.

Regardless of longstanding tradition or not, it is a barbaric practice to use a scalpel on an infant's genitals, without anaesthetic. It should not be permitted, ever. I imagine though that both Jews and Muslims would go berserk if we tried to bring the law in.

Once upon a time, circumscision was done as a matter of routine, or even demanded by doctors when a baby was born (right up until the mid 70s or so) in Australia.

Of course it shouldn't be permitted, but many vile things are excused for religious reasons. It's abhorrent.

jordan - I agree .

No need to touch anything unless there is a medical reason or by request when that person is an adult.

That's a pretty hard one to police.
There's not many subtle ways of saying "Giz a Captain Cook at ya bald man in a boat".

It's good to see males who are anti-circumcision.  Who could put their little boy through this unnecessary pain?  It is not only the religious who believe in it - I've heard many an atheist male say - my boy's getting it done so he can be just like me.

For female circumcision, I'd say absolutely no way, but male circumcision I see as being worthwhile.
Most males would probably remember their bemusement when faced with a sock or a helmet at the school urinal when there was undoubtedly a clear and present difference.
I considered myself a born helmet. I had no idea that I wasn't actually born that way and had no recollection whatsoever of any pain.
In later years, I began to realise the benefits of having had the chop - they are aplenty.

Calanen wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18th, 2009 at 10:53am: Hitchens makes the point with male circumcision that it's also as abhorrent as female circumcision particularly when carried out strictly according to religious instruction. I would get rid of them both, and let the child decide when its 18 if it wants to be circumscised as a male. Otherwise, leave things as they are. We don't live in the desert anymore and we have running water.

I agree. It would be much nicer if the operation would be performed by a qualified, chaste, hijab wearing person at the age of 18. It would give new meaning to the term "head job"  :)

Well, that is in case of male circumcision but how about girls?

Circumcision was taken for granted and commonplace until the late 70's, early 80's as Calanen stated.

Now it's the other way around - a circumcised boy is a rarity and that's the way it should be.  There have been so many accidents with the penis being accidentally cut off.  In fact years ago in quite a few cases when it was damaged - they would operate and turn the boy into a girl.  

It's a sick practise, but many men still believe it is necessary not realising that their sons may not appreciate being different later on.

Amadd wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 6:26pm:

For female circumcision, I'd say absolutely no way, but male circumcision I see as being worthwhile. Most males would probably remember their bemusement when faced with a sock or a helmet at the school urinal when there was undoubtedly a clear and present difference. I considered myself a born helmet. I had no idea that I wasn't actually born that way and had no recollection whatsoever of any pain. In later years, I began to realise the benefits of having had the chop - they are aplenty.

There are copious drawbacks......sex is not as good. That's a big one. There are no benefits that justify removing a healthy, functioning part of a human's body without their permission.

mantra wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 6:47pm:

Circumcision was taken for granted and commonplace until the late 70's, early 80's as Calanen stated. Now it's the other way around - a circumcised boy is a rarity and that's the way it should be.  There have been so many accidents with the penis being accidentally cut off.  In fact years ago in quite a few cases when it was damaged - they would operate and turn the boy into a girl.   It's a sick practise, but many men still believe it is necessary not realising that their sons may not appreciate being different later on.

I have heard that circumcised penises are more satisfactory for most of women. Is it true?

amadd - I had my "pencil sharpened" when I was in my early 30's for a medical reason.
imho it is better with my calamari ring removed, but I would have not had such a HUGE operation ( :-)) without due reason .

mantra wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 5:51pm:

It's good to see males who are anti-circumcision.  Who could put their little boy through this unnecessary pain?  It is not only the religious who believe in it - I've heard many an atheist male say - my boy's getting it done so he can be just like me.

That is seriously the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard.  So if he'd lost a foot in an industrial accident, we can now sever the kid's feet from the ankle down? Some people just shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Wow, our weiners look the same! Isn't that important...

No I don't think that "just to be like me" would be a very common reason. But at the very least, if a bloke is circumcised, you can see what he's thinking  ;D

Amadd wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 10:01pm:

No I don't think that "just to be like me" would be a very common reason. But at the very least, if a bloke is circumcised, you can see what he's thinking  ;D

Males of my generation were all circumcised, but our children generally aren't.  They don't use anaesthetic when they circumcise baby boys.  If docking the tails of puppies has been made illegal - why hasn't circumcision?

This is not cool.....

Seriously, why would God make something IN HIS IMAGE for you to then go and slice and dice? If there is a medical or OH&S need for something it is very different.

How can you justify reducing someone's pleasure in life?

No, seriously.

If there is an Islamic caliphate, does their law require compulsory circumcision of boys and girls?

Quote:

Males of my generation were all circumcised, but our children generally aren't.  They don't use anaesthetic when they circumcise baby boys.  If docking the tails of puppies has been made illegal - why hasn't circumcision?

Couldn't be any more painful than getting pulled head first through a two inch hole.

amadd - being born is a prequisite to life.

Nothing at all to do with an enforced religious belief.

Quote:

amadd - being born is a prequisite to life. Nothing at all to do with an enforced religious belief.

I agree that it's a bit of a different situation, but I do think that a lot of religious beliefs have factual grounding.
A lot of them are outdated nowadays, but some things never change. Men are still fairly lax when it comes to personal hygiene. That's nothing to do with religious beliefs.

With the diseases around today, it's as much as of an advantage today as it ever was to create the perfect todge.
Socks look stupid, and anybody who owns one is therefore stupid  :D