Parents found guilty of mutilating one year daughters genitals

spurious

Imagine deciding your female child will not be able to enjoy sex? That is some twisted thinking, even for sky fairy followers.

Thinkingaboutit

Anyone comparing male circumcision and FGM are not reasonable.

The gross barbarity of FGM has become, by custom, a requirement for female followers of a certain religion of peace, although hopefully /surely it is in no way mandatory for its female adherents. It was an Arabian custom before it arrived on the scene, but has spread with this religion. A good many come as 'asylum seekers' who are never deported - is it not insane that something so noble in concept as asylum seeking has become a back channel for migration? If people dogmatically insist that all who want asylum seeking to function as it should, are racists, FGM and barbarities of the same cultural origin like butchery of livestock with throat cutting in back gardens (and hence no electrical stunning like in a licenced halal/kosher slaughterhouse), will just become more and more common.

stoneill

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't see what all the fuss is about? It was done for religious reasons... The only reason the procedure was performed by a "back alley" practitioner is because female circumcision is illegal in Ireland. If those parents had a boy, they could perfectly legally get him circumcised in a tax payer funded hospital. If we are to believe in equality as it is unendingly spouted these days, female circumcision should be fully legalized and those parents should be freed. If it is good enough for a boy then it is good enough for a girl.

It's called Genital Mutilation for a reason.

Wibbs

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The gross barbarity of FGM has become, by custom, a requirement for female followers of a certain religion of peace, although hopefully /surely it is in no way mandatory for its female adherents. It was an Arabian custom before it arrived on the scene, but has spread with this religion.

1) it's not mandatory for women in Islam, save for some small sects of same. 2) It was practiced in some cultures in Africa long before any Abrahamic religions showed up and 3) though it's become associated with Islam there are regions in Africa where the Christian women have suffered it more than the Muslim women in the same region.

wellwhynot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is amazing what cultural conditioning, or religious belief, can do isn't it? For example in some areas of the US they have parents who watch their child die from otherwise easily treatable or manageable conditions, solely because they believe medical intervention is an affront to their god.

The horrific thing is, the really insidious thing, is that if you believed the things they believe.... you would likely do the same thing to your child. An awful thought right?

But think about it. If you deeply love your child and GENUINELY believed a medical Intervention would alleviate the suffering of your child here and now, but torment their ETERNAL soul for all time.... would you not watch your child die painfully too? I know I probably would, no matter how difficult it was for me in the moment.

Beliefs matters. Especially unsubstantiated insidious superstitious nonsense like gods.

I understand your point but the parents are not living in some remote village in Africa. The child was born in Ireland where FGM is illegal. It is one thing to watch your child die for your belief they will go to heaven. It is another to mutilate your under 2 year old to preserve her virginity. This is not a religious practice as it is not written in the Koran.

1641

It is one thing to campaign against male circumcision but it is ludicrous to put it anywhere near the same category of seriousness as FGM.
Whatever the cultural myths surrounding FGM, its one purpose is to suppress women's sexual pleasure and replace it with pain so that they can be "controlled". It may be more associated with some religions but it predates them all and it relates to female subjugation, full stop.
Male circumcision does not destroy men's capacity for sexual enjoyment.

Wibbs

wellwhynot wrote: »

I understand your point but the parents are not living in some remote village in Africa. The child was born in Ireland where FGM is illegal. It is one thing to watch your child die for your belief they will go to heaven. It is another to mutilate your under 2 year old to preserve her virginity.

Again you quite rightfully think this because of your innate cultural experiences. As N points out there are all sorts of wild and wacky nutters in a nation like the US that believe all sorts of wild and wacky nonsense, even though they're surrounded on all sides by modern science and medicine and culture.

One does not have to be living in a remote village to keep alive the beliefs of that remote village. Doubly so if people are culturally cloistered and live in areas where most are similar or sympathetic and rarely interact with "outsiders" and if anything are more wary of them. Women from conservative cultures are even more cloistered.

These cultural ideas are often heightened in wider cultures that are not your own, because they increase the sense of belonging to a community in a wider culture that doesn't always gel with yours. This is common in nigh on every diaspora on the planet. Hell, when Irish people go on holidays to Spain or whatever a large chunk of them will deliberately seek out Irish bars to eat and drink. Ditto for the British and others, and that's only for the span of a two week holiday. I know people who've lived in Spain for years who can barely manage a few words and phrases in the local tongue.

wellwhynot

FGM is in no way comparable to circumcision. FGM can cause lifelong pain, repeated infections, increased risk of death of woman/baby during child birth, lifelong painful sex, infertility, bleeding, cysts, bacterial infections, viral infections, abcesses, incontinency, hemorrhaging and psychological issues (PTSD). The operation itself is classed as a major one and described as physical torture that can result in death usually with zero sedation.

Circumcision which I don’t agree with either is classed as a minor medical procedure with some benefits and is usually done in a hospital setting with sedation.

FishOnABike

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A law like FGM is one thing. Calling out a culture living in your country is quite another. A judge said it wasn't white culture's place to judge a death that happened in Ireland and let the man go.

When in a country a person has to live by that country's rules. A judge who let's someone go because the person does't believe in a law is not doing their duty as a judge in upholding the law without fear or favour. Ignorance is not a defence.

Beasty

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

It’s what he does. Picks absolutely ridiculous positions on issues and then argues his point.

Just ignore him.

Attack the post, not the poster

Kidchameleon

maebee wrote: »

The father of that baby should be laid on a table and have his bits mutilated.

I assume you also think the mother of that baby should be laid on a table and have her bits mutilated?

Boggles

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

The Journal have turned off comments because they don’t want criticism of the parents

Really?

Or is it because it is still an active case that hasn't reached completion?

Took in your tinfoil lad.

Wibbs

1641 wrote: »

It is one thing to campaign against male circumcision but it is ludicrous to put it anywhere near the same category of seriousness as FGM.
Whatever the cultural myths surrounding FGM, its one purpose is to suppress women's sexual pleasure and replace it with pain so that they can be "controlled". It may be more associated with some religions but it predates them all and it relates to female subjugation, full stop.
Male circumcision does not destroy men's capacity for sexual enjoyment.

Again we're looking at things from our own current cultural biases. One current cultural bias in the West is girls bodies are more out of bounds and "protected" than boys and there are more mainstream drives to support that. As I asked before, would anyone be OK with the medical removal of the exact same genital tissue in little girls as they do with little boys? They would not.

Now I most certainly agree that FGM has a large chunk of female sexual control to it, however so has the male form in various cultures, including western. From the wiki on the matter:

The origin of circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began

as a religious sacrifice,
as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood,
as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility,
as a means of reducing sexual pleasure,
as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical,
as a means of marking those of higher social status,
as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration,
as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors,
as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors,
as a means of removing "excess" pleasure,
as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women,
as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain,
as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or
to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader,[5][6]
as a way to repel demonesses,[7] and
as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin.

Emphasis mine. It became popular among non religious adherents in the West out of fashion, status and was thought and recommended to lower adolescent and animalistic sexual behaviour. And nigh on all of the rest of the above list can be attached to FGM. While the damage is different, they are remarkably similar cultural practices. Oh and there are even those who argue and from a "science" background that FGM doesn't reduce women's sexual pleasure to the degree most suggest. I'd call bollocks on that myself for a few reasons.

1641

Wibbs wrote: »

Again we're looking at things from our own current cultural biases. One current cultural bias in the West is girls bodies are more out of bounds and "protected" than boys and there are more mainstream drives to support that. As I asked before, would anyone be OK with the medical removal of the exact same genital tissue in little girls as they do with little boys? They would not.

That may be but it is more of an abstract conceptual debate.

FGM, as commonly practised, is a gross mutitilation that results in serious life long consequences. Eradicating this should be the focus. Sometimes it is better just to keep it simple.

Well, I believe that when migrating to another country, you respect the culture and laws of that country. If you cannot accept the cultural/legal differences, and must continue your own traditions, then don't move to that country.

FGM is an awful practice that shouldn't ever be tolerated in Ireland, and those who engage in it, should be expelled immediately (with a criminal record being registered). This is not something that we want gaining a foothold in Ireland as a way to accept/tolerate the differences in culture of immigrants. As Ireland becomes more diverse (which is definitely going to happen), we are going to see more pressure to allow operations like FGM or other cultural customs that are alien to these shores. There will be the eventual expectation that Ireland should adapt to accept such practices as a magnanimous first world nation with freedom for all.. This does not mean that we should seek to block out all cultural customs of immigrants, but there are a variety of customs which are simply barbaric/primitive and shouldn't be allowed to continue. If they can't accept that, there are plenty of countries left in the world, where they can live that way.

While I am against FGM, I respect their right to do so within the bounds of their own country should it be legal to do so. It's not my place to demand change from another country... Such change, along with the moral recognition of it's negative value, has to come from the native people themselves. That is the step of progress and advancement of society. It simply can't be forced on anyone, because they'll simply dig in, reinforcing their belief in it's value because they feel persecuted. I can, however, object to/oppose it's practice in any European nation since it's not a practice native to the native cultures... Nope. Harsh treatment should be applied to those who perform FGM in Ireland (both the parents and the "medical" personnel), and a message that this will not be tolerated very publicly made.

Danzy

splashuum wrote: »

An absolutely horrendous act which is apparently becoming more common in ireland each year.
I believe a harsh sentence should be given here to stamp out this barbarism.

https://twitter.com/thejournal_ie/status/1200065509712154624?s=21

They were described as good parents by the Court.

If you take a knife to a toddler's genitals, your not a good parent.

Take the kids in to foster care, deport the parents.

This will be common here.

Brian?

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not really, if female doesn’t enjoy sex male will get a hell of a lot less of it.
No winner there!

Not in cultures where spousal rape is acceptable, which is the case in large parts of Africa and the Middle East.

It’s a barbaric practice that comes from exerting control over women.

nozzferrahhtoo

wellwhynot wrote: »

This is not a religious practice as it is not written in the Koran.

I do not know the people so I do not know the narratives under which they were operating. Perhaps religious. Perhaps cultural. Perhaps both. I do not know.

My point is just that actions that appear abhorrent and senseless to us, even insane, can actually be quite rational given what the people believe. To the point that if we shared those beliefs, we would probably do the action too.

That is the insidious power of religious and cultural beliefs and why beliefs matter. The true shock is that people do not have to be evil or insane to do these things. They are perfectly rational things to do GIVEN the irrational bull**** behind them. So we tend to have to go one or more levels deeper when confronting such horrors, than the mere horror itself.

In terms of our culture however, they are criminals who committed a crime on our soil. No more. No less. And I hope they are treated to the full extent of the law in punishing that crime. With no excuses about their religion or culture or other nonsense to allow them to get away with it. Alas that is a hope rather than an expectation these days.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Take the kids in to foster care, deport the parents.
.

That seems wrong to me. Separating parents from their children. At this point the damage has been done, and the child belongs with her parents, who, other in ways are likely to be good parents. Personally, I find their behavior abhorrent, but the cultural aspects provide some measure of justification for the practice. I'd imagine you'd be giving grounds for decades of legal battles and diplomatic nightmares.

The point is the encourage preventative measures. Make it clear to those who want to engage in such a practice that they're not welcome in Europe/Ireland. Deportation with the inability ever to return, along with a criminal record should get the message across.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ They have other children. If the same mutilation assault has not been done to them then I can understand the "Take the kids away from the parents" position a little. If there is every reason to expect the same crime of mutilating violence will be perpetrated against the other children too.

Not our call to make either way without MUCH more data though I would expect.

Lillyfae

Danzy wrote: »

They were described as good parents by the Court.

If you take a knife to a toddler's genitals, your not a good parent.

Take the kids in to foster care, deport the parents.

This will be common here.

In court, by their legal defence teams.

I believe the children are with their aunt now.

Chris_Heilong

Sometimes it is ok to tell new arrivals their religion is wrong and they must modify it to comply with our standards, if they can not change then they can find somewhere else to live. Everyone is equal but every idea/ideology is not equally a good idea/ideology.

One eyed Jack

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Sometimes it is ok to tell new arrivals their religion is wrong and they must modify it to comply with our standards, if they can not change then they can find somewhere else to live. Everyone is equal but every idea/ideology is not equally a good idea/ideology.

That’s one idea I suppose as a means to deal with new arrivals with ideas which you don’t agree with, but if your aim is actually to curb the spread of ideas you don’t agree with, what then do you suggest is done with the natives with abhorrent ideas?

Kidchameleon

Wibbs wrote: »

As I asked before, would anyone be OK with the medical removal of the exact same genital tissue in little girls as they do with little boys? They would not.
.

I have asked this question, you have asked it twice yet nobody has answered. That says it all really.

jam_mac_jam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have asked this question, you have asked it twice yet nobody has answered. That says it all really.

That girls don't have a penis so its not really the same thing?


Is that what it says? What is the question as you can't remove the exact thing?

facehugger99

Mutilating children because of some sky-fairy nonsense is barbaric. I don't give a ****e about cultural-sensitives it needs to be prosecuted to the absolute fullest extent of the law, and if that's not enough to stamp it out in this country, then new legislation needs to be drafted.

I would include circumcision in all of the above.

Kidchameleon

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That girls don't have a penis so its not really the same thing?


Is that what it says? What is the question as you can't remove the exact thing?

I linked an article yesterday that details a circumcision procedure for girls that is analogous to the male version. Would you be ok with that being legalised and tax funded in Ireland?

One eyed Jack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I linked an article yesterday that details a circumcision procedure for girls that is analogous to the male version. Would you be ok with that being legalised and tax funded in Ireland?

The procedure you linked to offered no medical justification for the procedure whatsoever. It was entirely based upon the idea of finding a compromise to acknowledge cultural beliefs that they found couldn’t be overcome. It has nothing to do with performing an equivalent medical procedure for equivalent medical conditions. Did you even read your own link?


We offer a revised categorisation for non-therapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients.


Bold emphasis my own.

seamus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That girls don't have a penis so its not really the same thing?

The clitoral hood is the same tissue as the foreskin and serves a broadly similar purpose.

I find it quite bizarre that people will go crazy about FGM but when it comes to circumcision they say, "It's not really that big a deal, let's just ignore it".

The impact is certainly different, but the core issue is the exact same; you are mutilating a child for no good reason.

There should be a minimum five year sentence for anyone carrying out or facilitating any permanent body modifications on a child (under 16) that are not medically necessary. And I include piercings and tattoos in that.

A child's best interests are not served by allowing parents to make permanent alterations to their body which are not medically necessary. It's barbaric.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

The clitoral hood is the same tissue as the foreskin and serves a broadly similar purpose.

I find it quite bizarre that people will go crazy about FGM but when it comes to circumcision they say, "It's not really that big a deal, let's just ignore it".

The impact is certainly different, but the core issue is the exact same; you are mutilating a child for no good reason.

You find the differences in people’s attitudes to FGM and MGM bizarre, but then you give the very reason for people’s differences in attitudes - because the impact of either procedure is certainly different.

It’s really not that bizarre at all that people react differently to things which are different from each other.