Parents found guilty of mutilating one year daughters genitals

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure who is making that claim though. The comparison people are drawing are not reliant on the outcomes and consequences being the same. Rather what they/we are saying is that by gendering the issue or having a pissing competition about who suffers more just brings in irrelevancies. The simple fact is that mutiliating a baby or toddler, for no medically justifiable reason, should be a crime. Nothing to do with religion. Nothing to do with culture. Nothing to do with gender.

It should not be done. It should be illegal. And regardless of whether the consequences of the VICTIMS vary, the consequences of the criminal should be the same.

Their comparisons are reliant on proposing that the circumstances are the same, that the two separate issues can be equated if we ignore gender, and then you yourself go further and suggest that religion and culture are irrelevant too!

Ignoring all these things is why FGM will continue to be done, because the people who continue to practice it do so precisely for the reason you stated earlier - their beliefs matter, to them, and their beliefs with regard to their justification for continuing to support FGM are founded on all the things you consider irrelevant.

I don’t think the consequences should be so easily dismissed, because the consequences aren’t the same, and the outcomes aren’t the same, and if this were a pissing contest, girls who have experienced FGM don’t even get out of the starting blocks due to persistent UTI infections as a result of FGM.

Of course both MGM and FGM should be illegal, but the consequences for the perpetrators should be based upon the consequences of their actions, and for the victims of FGM the consequences are far greater than the consequences of MGM. That’s a simple fact that shouldn’t be ignored and diluted in order to equate two very different issues.

Raconteuse

Ah they can of course be compared at times - e.g. a baby having FGM or MGM carried out on them is barbaric in that they're both incapable of giving consent and both experiencing the same pain, fear and shock.

Let's not stoop to the level of the "whatabout"/"women have it so much better" crowd.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well your "I have no time for you" thing did not last long did it. Never does actually, as you have tried that one before. Usually when you know you were wrong and prefer not to admit it. Such as when you blatantly claim someone said the exact opposite than they actually did.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their comparisons are reliant on proposing that the circumstances are the same, that the two separate issues can be equated if we ignore gender, and then you yourself go further and suggest that religion and culture are irrelevant too!

Yes, irrelevant. Exactly. If you commit a murder for example then you are a murder. It should not matter a jot if you think you did it for religious reasons.

If you hack perfectly healthy parts of a perfectly healthy baby then there too, I see no reason why your religious reasoning would be relevant. You would have mutilated a baby. That is what should be relevant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ignoring all these things is why FGM will continue to be done

I do not think they should be ignored. The religious reasons for people doing such things should OF COURSE be addressed. What I am saying is not to ignore them entirely, but to ignore them in the context of treating the act as a crime.

We should OF COURSE take a holistic approach to the problem and address the religious and cultural motivations. I would never suggest otherwise. Sure you know me, I do it all the time by pointing out that the religious nonsense upon which many ideas, actions and policies are based are unsubstantiated.

For example if you attack someone, you should be done for assault. If you did it because the person is homosexual, you should still be done for assault. That does not mean we should not ALSO be going into society and undermining the fallacious reasoning and biases that lead people to homophobia as well. Ignoring your homophobia in one context is NOT to suggest ignoring it in every context. These concepts of "hate crimes" are problematic though well meant.

But again, purely in the context of a crime having been committed if you give me three parents who hacked bits off their child... one for reasons of evil malice, one for cultural reasons, and one for religious reasons.... I would say treat all of them the same as the criminals they are under the law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think the consequences should be so easily dismissed

As above, it really depends on the context in which we are dismissing them. I am talking PURELY in terms of treating the act as an illegal attack on a defenseless baby/toddler. In other contexts the consequences become more relevant. But in the context of a violent act of mutilation being performed on someone who has, nay CAN NOT consent..... I am not seeing why the relevance should be there. It is a healthy baby, with healthy parts people are hacking off. There is no justification for that, regardless of the gender of the victim of this violent abuse and assault.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a simple fact that shouldn’t be ignored and diluted in order to equate two very different issues.

Again though I am not seeing anyone trying to "equate" the two issues. This jump people are making between any attempt to find points of comparison, to accusing them of equating them, is not one I have yet seen justified. It is seemingly reactionary nonsense. But alas it is one I see on many topics. Any attempt to find commonalities between two things is often met with "How dare you say they are the same" when no one actually did any such thing.

But if two things share a common attribute you can OF COURSE compare them. And there are many common attributes. The most obvious being the one you just thanked in a post above. Neither baby, of either gender, can consent or refuse. Straight away you have a valid and rational point of comparison right there.

A baby was attacked unjustifiable with a knife and parts of it were cut off. That is all I need to know. The gender of the victim in THAT context, irrelevant to me. The religion or culture of the parents who did it, even more so. I have no dog in the gender or immigration fight really, so I share the disgust some have shown on this thread at those who tried to use this story to score points on those topics and hobby horses.

tayto lover

Drop them home to their own country from 30,000 feet.
Awful savagery on a defenseless child.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well your "I have no time for you" thing did not last long did it. Never does actually, as you have tried that one before. Usually when you know you were wrong and prefer not to admit it. Such as when you blatantly claim someone said the exact opposite than they actually did.

Your post was an atomic powered level of stupidity that you had literally outdone yourself. It was only on that basis I chose to address it. Essentially you’re arguing that the law should ignore motivating factors. It doesn’t do that for any crime. Suggesting that it should be a crime regardless of the circumstances is hardly anything new. The people who do it will continue to do it in spite of the fact that they are fully aware of the consequences.

ceadaoin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well no, because that would render him unable to reproduce or even have sex also. So that would not be "similar surgery" at all. It would be very much worse as it is not just a physical mutilation against the person but also a removal of an entire biological function.

Whatever horrors there are about FGM, it does not remove the ability to have sex and it does not remove the ability to reproduce. So your comparison does not AT ALL hold here.

It is likely to remove the ability to have sex without pain and it is intended to remove any pleasure for the women. It is also likely to result in complications during childbirth that will increase the risk of death to both mother and baby, and increases the risk of serious after effects such as fistulas which result in incontinence (if that happens those women are commonly ostracised and shunned from their community). So yeah, I would say FGM does remove the ability to have sex and reproduce in a normal fashion.

Has anyone quoted any of these posts that are condoning non medical male circumcision yet though?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your post was an atomic powered level of stupidity that you had literally outdone yourself.

Oh look your usual move of "I can not rebut you, so I will just scream words like nonsense at it in the hope it sticks".

If something is nonsense, or wrong, then rebut it. Calling it stupid or nonsense does not magically make it so just because you can not fault it directly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was only on that basis I chose to address it. Essentially you’re arguing that the law should ignore motivating factors.

Not always no. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Do not assume that me saying it should not be relevant in ONE context (that of the topic of this thread) means it is my position on EVERY context.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people who do it will continue to do it in spite of the fact that they are fully aware of the consequences.

Which is why people on the thread are coherently, or more incoherently like Kidcham in his bait and switch that tripped you up into misunderstanding his position so badly, are demanding more consistency on it, and why I think we need to look past the gender of the victim. Making it a gender issue, or an immigration issue, or a religious issue, helps nothing here. It was a mutilating attack with a blade on a toddler. If you stab someone in the street in the stomach with a knife I am not going to ask "Ok.... was it a woman?".

As for the "people will continue to do it" crystal ball stuff, I do not share your pessimism. We are a constantly evolving society and culture and I think we can of course remove barbaric practices if we try. I wonder was there some OEJ nay sayer in the past coming out with lines like "The people who keep slaves will continue to do it in spite of the consequences" too but we removed slavery from many of our cultures and continue to work against it.

But even if the pessimism holds, so the hell what? I often advocate doing the right thing in and of itself, whether success is likely or unlikely. The right thing to do, remains the right thing to do, regardless of how large the challenge.

nozzferrahhtoo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It is likely to remove the ability to have sex without pain and it is intended to remove any pleasure for the women.

No doubt that is true. But that is still not holding up the comparison the user made. One makes sex and reproduction more difficult, your words "in a normal fashion" are pretty good. The other makes both 100% entirely impossible. Hardly the same thing really.

People are getting strangely upset when VALID comparisons are made on the thread. Yet a completely invalid one managed to slip under the radar.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Has anyone quoted any of these posts that are condoning non medical male circumcision yet though?

Strangely there have been few advocates of that on this thread yet. It does not feel SO long ago that the topic of male circumcision came up and there were, if I recall, some advocates then. But to be honest I can not remember when it was, or who it was, right now. I would have to look back on it to know for sure.

But there has so far been none really on this thread, which is a good thing and quite refreshing to see.

I genuinely see no justification at all for cosmetic alterations of toddlers. Especially, but not solely, irreversible ones. While the "automatic 5 years for piercing their ears" does not sit very well with me.... I absolutely see where it is coming from and it is hard to fault.

But hacking healthy bits off healthy babies is abhorrent enough, totally unjustified, and nightmarish to think anyone considering themselves "civilised" might be doing. Getting to the level of "Well hang on, were they doing it to a boy or a girl" seems entirely odd to me in that context. You attacked a baby with a knife for no reason.... that's all I need to know.

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I genuinely see no justification at all for cosmetic alterations of toddlers. Especially, but not solely, irreversible ones. While the "automatic 5 years for piercing their ears" does not sit very well with me.... I absolutely see where it is coming from and it is hard to fault.

I'll admit it's draconian, but IMO it's important to make it clear to people that this is one of those hard lines in the sand.

There are no shades of grey when it comes to body modification. Absolutely zero justification for anyone to perform any kind of elective body mod on a child. It's not a case of "ah shure it's grand, what harm".
These are decisions that absolutely do not need to be made before adulthood and should absolutely be left to the individual to make when they become an adult.

Forcing people to respect this very simple concept - parents are custodians, not masters, of their children - is essential to the welfare of a society that values respect for others and respect for yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Again I can not fault any of that, so I have to explore introspectively where and why it is not sitting 100% right with me. Something is niggling at me and I just do not know what yet. I suspect it has SOMETHING to do with the difference between reversible and irreversible cosmetic modification. But I am not 100% sure yet.

I shall think on this. There is something I am seeing there, but not seeing that I am seeing it. I need to spot what it is.

Brian?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

No.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

I'll admit it's draconian, but IMO it's important to make it clear to people that this is one of those hard lines in the sand.

There are no shades of grey when it comes to body modification.

I can't agree with it. The whole thing is different shades, different positions on a spectrum.


If we are to punish based on a metric, it would probably be something like 'degree of permanent damage and impact on life'. And I don't see how a pair of pierced ears merits a 5-year sentence for the parents of a 15-year old who will testify in court that they absolutely wanted it and are completely happy with it and not damaged in the least.


But, we are getting way off track, so I'll leave it there.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

I can't agree with it. The whole thing is different shades, different positions on a spectrum.


If we are to punish based on a metric, it would probably be something like 'degree of permanent damage and impact on life'. And I don't see how a pair of pierced ears merits a 5-year sentence for the parents of a 15-year old who will testify in court that they absolutely wanted it and are completely happy with it and not damaged in the least.


But, we are getting way off track, so I'll leave it there.

I'd imagine it's about severity. Piercing the ears will essentially heal over time (I could be wrong though.. don't ear piercings need to be redone if the stud is not left in them? Vague memories.) . FGM/MGM will not. That would be my standard. Will the modification revert back to it's natural state without the help of a medical professional? If the answer is yes, then no problem. If not, then hit the parents with criminal charges.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

I'll admit it's draconian, but IMO it's important to make it clear to people that this is one of those hard lines in the sand.

There are no shades of grey when it comes to body modification. Absolutely zero justification for anyone to perform any kind of elective body mod on a child. It's not a case of "ah shure it's grand, what harm".
These are decisions that absolutely do not need to be made before adulthood and should absolutely be left to the individual to make when they become an adult.

There are plenty of shades of grey but seeing as the chances of such draconian measures are quite literally never going to be introduced in this country I don’t see much to be gained from arguing the point. It’s just posturing to suggest that parents should be criminalised for what really are regarded as acceptable cultural standards. There’s a chasm of a difference between tattoos and/or piercings, and FGM, so much so that they’re not even in the same ball park. I had thought earlier that osarusan might have been taking your earlier point to an extreme to demonstrate the futility of it, but given you insist, I’m thinking maybe you were actually serious.

seamus wrote: »

Forcing people to respect this very simple concept - parents are custodians, not masters, of their children - is essential to the welfare of a society that values respect for others and respect for yourself.

No it’s not, that’s just your own version of authoritarianism. Again it’s a non-starter for the very reason that people who practice FGM don’t share your opinions on what you imagine is valuing respect for others by attempting to undermine their parental authority over their own children. I’m assuming you’ll expect the State to enforce these new values of yours? The State bodies currently responsible for children’s welfare haven’t hands to wipe their own arses, let alone do they have the resources it would take to implement your ideas for other people who don’t share your values.

All your values would create is exactly the opposite of the kind of society you envision. It’s a short-sighted approach that shows a complete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who doesn’t share your values. If you aren’t prepared to respect other people’s values, then why would you imagine they would respect yours? Currently, they don’t, and that’s why they still practice FGM in spite of the fact that they know it isn’t tolerated in Western society. It’s not because they regard Western liberal values as superior to their own.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see much to be gained from arguing the point. It’s just posturing to suggest that parents should be criminalised for what really are regarded as acceptable cultural standards.

I think your second sentence is the answer to the first. It is by having conversations, arguments, debates that we start to challenge "cultural standards" and change them. Like I said earlier, doing the right thing no matter how likely the success of it is or is not, is a driver for many people who manage to effect change.

When it comes to mutilation of male babies one thing I heard often by people arguing FOR it, and one person mentioned it already on this thread though not in the context of arguing for it, is an appeal to it being a cultural standard. They say to me often, especially on american forums where I post, "Sure 70-90% of men in the US have had it done" as if this is somehow a justification of the practice. If a persons defence of the status quo is an appeal TO that status quo, then the circular nature of their defence should concern them.

It will take more and more people to stand up and say "Hang on, I did not ask if it is normal or standard, I asked if it is RIGHT" before things will change. It will not change by people throwing their hands up and saying "Ah sure lets not even bother try, I personally do not believe it will ever change".

I believe in fighting for what is right, even when it is hopeless which it rarely is. Even if you magically went to the future, came back and said "Dude, I was in the future, I saw there that you failed" I will just reply "Bummer, sorry to hear that, but I have to keep doing it anyway".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again it’s a non-starter for the very reason that people who practice FGM don’t share your opinions on what you imagine is valuing respect for others

Nor do rapists. But they can make their protests about their opinions from behind jail cell walls all the same. You see they are not required to share MY opinions on the matter. They can even shout "I dont recognise the court" all the while they are marched off to prison for all I care.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All your values would create is exactly the opposite of the kind of society you envision. It’s a short-sighted approach that shows a complete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who doesn’t share your values.

That is just Bull. We do it all the time. That is what law is. Our enforcing the values of our society on those who do not share them, while showing no respect or tolerance for them not sharing them. When we lock up a person who thinks it is ok to have sex with children, we are very much showing a complete lack of respect and tolerance for them not sharing out values. And well we should.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you aren’t prepared to respect other people’s values, then why would you imagine they would respect yours?

As above, I do not expect them to share my values. I expect them to very much NOT share them. From their chair in a jail cell. Just like I do with rapists who do not share my values about the bodily autonomy and concepts of consent that are MY values when it comes to men and women.

The whole point of laws like that is because we do not, and should not, respect the values of some people. The question is WHICH people and WHAT values should we respect and which ones not. But that we should not respect some of them is absolutely a given.

If you took genital mutilating violence out and replaced it with "having sex with children" and said the same stuff, you would get the same response. As you say it is BECAUSE they do not respect our values in regards to children that they go around raping them. And the sentence "If you aren’t prepared to respect other people’s values, then why would you imagine they would respect yours?" has, and should have, literally nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Wibbs

katiek102010 wrote: »

Circumcision is removal of part of or the foreskin. FGM is rge removal of the clitoris. To perform a similar surgery on a man it would be the removal of full penis and testes.

It continues to amaze me that some people are holding court on a subject when they appear to have eff all knowledge of anatomy and basic anatomy at that. We've already had FGM compared to removal of the prostate(da fuk?) and now the balls get dragged in. FYI the testes are analogous to the ovaries. Nobody is removing ovaries as part of any cultural practice*

wellwhynot wrote: »

It is estimated between 78% and 92% of all males in America are circumcised. You cannot compare circumcision with FGM which has no place at all in civilised society.

So your position is that because one culture is OK with one form of unwarranted surgery on children, that means the practice is OK?

This is the point I'm trying to get across here. It is NOT to suggest FGM is equivalent in damage or sexual and psychological effects, nor to bring in the whataboutery about the poor willies, it IS to illustrate that one's cultural upbringing and viewpoint directly and quite heavily inform ones position on a subject. Until more understand this outside of those cultures that view FGM as legitimate, it's going to be a lot more difficult to sway them, because you're telling them that your cultural viewpoint trumps theirs and being confusng, even quasi hypocritical about it. Oh don't get me wrong our culture on this matter bloody well does have the high moral ground. I am after all very much a culturalist on a few matters and consider this bronze age primitivism abhorrent.






*Though removal of testes was a thing in a few societies, including some European, the supply of eunuchs was one and of all things to "improve" the voices of adult men and keep them singing in the high registers like kids. So along with Baritones and Sopranos, you had Castrati. The vatican kept them around until the late 19th century. Mad.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SusieBlue wrote: »

I wonder if those who circumcise their sons for "preventative" reasons also have their tonsils & appendixes removed at birth also. You never ever hear of people doing that, yet you'd often hear of parents claiming to have their babies circumcised in case they run into problems with tight foreskins down the line.
So why not have the appendix and tonsils removed too? It makes no sense at all.

And a burst appendix can kill! :eek:

I’m always amazed at how ingrained the circumcision woo is amongst Americans. Americans that I consider to be intelligent people too.

I get pissed off when I hear people say that uncircumcised penises look disgusting. No they don’t! And that uncircumcised penises are unhygienic. What, do they think that men in countries where circumcision is rare are walking around with rancid penises? It’s so bizarre.

And I don’t care how rare botching of circumcision is. If even only one boy a year has their penis damaged because of a botched circumcision, it’s too many because it was caused by a completely unnecessary procedure.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Raconteuse wrote: »

Jeez did you not see the numerous posts before yours asking the same question?

A very young child's clitoris was sliced off and her vaginal opening sewn up... should be enough to cause horror in and of itself, however, not wonderful Current Affairs - "but whatabout!" :rolleyes:

I think circumcision of young boys is barbaric and upsetting too, and should also be banned (shouldn't have to say this but some geniuses decide that if you're opposed to FGM (I.e. you're normal), you aren't opposed to MGM). but... can there be ANY discussion about violations of females without "but but muh males", "People care more about females" (I mean yeah, clearly, when there is a practice like FGM)? It's in such bad taste. Very easy to start another thread but why resist a good gender polarisation opportunity.

Can't stand seeing babies and toddlers with pierced ears either.

I think the worst example of this I saw was on a thread about the cervical cancer debacle. Somebody brought up a young father he knew who was dying of cancer and why wasn’t he getting attention and blah blah blah. There are lots of young men and women in the country quietly dealing with terminal illnesses. The cervical cancer cases were getting attention because of the fuck ups with testing. It’s not like all terminally ill women in the country were getting attention. Just the ones related to that scandal. But some goober decide that thread was a perfect opportunity for some gender war bullshit.

One eyed Jack

Yeah that’s all well and good in theory nozz but the effects of seamus’s draconian laws are already evident in societies like India and the Middle East where FGM is practiced.

The closest we have here in Ireland are the travelling community which are regarded as an ethnic minority with their own distinct culture. They would laugh at the likes of seamus or yourself rocking up to tell them they’d better comply with your standards “or else”. I don’t imagine you’d fare any better with an immigrant minority who don’t care for integrating into mainstream society and have no wish to do so, who prefer to remain within their own communities living according to their own rules.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cultures which are different enough from ours in a multitude of ways that I am not sure the comparison would hold at all.

But certainly if the only rebuttal to my position is to point out that we are quite ****e in our country at applying the laws we even already have, let alone new ones, you will get little argument from me. That's a separate fight, also worth fighting though.

My ideal though would be that if you assault a child with a knife and cut healthy bits off them for no medically warranted reason... then you will fall foul of the law regardless of your gender, or the victims, your religion, or the victims, your culture, or the victims. A crime is a crime is a crime.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Cultures which are different enough from ours in a multitude of ways that I am not sure the comparison would hold at all.

But certainly if the only rebuttal to my position is to point out that we are quite ****e in our country at applying the laws we even already have, let alone new ones, you will get little argument from me. That's a separate fight, also worth fighting though.

Yes, that’s the point I was making - the difference between Western culture and other cultures is that we don’t have draconian laws of the kind that seamus would want introduced where the parents are mere custodians of their children, where girls are used as bargaining tools and status symbols and where FGM is carried out by the women in the village in order to make them an attractive marriage prospect or face social ostracisation from their communities.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My ideal though would be that if you assault a child with a knife and cut healthy bits off them for no medically warranted reason... then you will fall foul of the law regardless of your gender, or the victims, your religion, or the victims, your culture, or the victims. A crime is a crime is a crime.

Well yes, that’s stating the obvious really. In many of the countries where FGM is practiced, it’s a crime. That doesn’t stop anyone. In order to prevent girls from being subjected to these practices in the first place, you need to acknowledge the context in which these practices are carried out and why they’re carried out, who carries them out and how are these ideas perpetuated and permitted by the communities in which these girls live in and grow up in. Tackling these issues and preventing young girls from becoming victims takes a lot more than just pointless posturing and imagining that people are going to stop doing something just because it’s now a crime, and the consequences for the commission of the crime don’t come anywhere close to the social consequences of not committing the crime -


CHILD MARRIAGE AND FGM/C: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

FGM and child marriage: grandmothers are part of the problem and the solution

Raconteuse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think the worst example of this I saw was on a thread about the cervical cancer debacle. Somebody brought up a young father he knew who was dying of cancer and why wasn’t he getting attention and blah blah blah. There are lots of young men and women in the country quietly dealing with terminal illnesses. The cervical cancer cases were getting attention because of the fuck ups with testing. It’s not like all terminally ill women in the country were getting attention. Just the ones related to that scandal. But some goober decide that thread was a perfect opportunity for some gender war bullshit.

Incredible. What a nut job.

statesaver

I hope and expect the child will not be reunited with her barbaric parents.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, that’s the point I was making - the difference between Western culture and other cultures is that we don’t have draconian laws

But thats not the point I was making, so I am not sure why you think we are saying similar things. The point I was making was that there is no reason to expect a law applied in our country, and a law applied in a country very very different to our own, to play out the same way.

But I am certainly more of the same mind as seamus in seeing Parents as stewards of their children rather than owners of them. I see children as individuals under our care, not property under our ownership, and that distinction does drive a lot of the goals and agendas I strive for. If you do not share that distinction then it would go a long way to explaining the fundamental difference of opinion and agenda we have on so many many issues.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That doesn’t stop anyone.

You cant know that now can you. You know it does not stop EVERYONE, but you do not know it does not stop ANYONE. You're being presumptuous again. But again the fact a law does not stop some people breaking it, is no reason not to have that law. We have laws against rape and murder. We have laws against gun crimes in the US too. Does that stop everyone raping and murdering? Does it stop gang wars and gun violence? No it does not. But we still do, and should, maintain those laws. It is a nonsense argument from you here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In order to prevent girls from being subjected to these practices in the first place, you need to acknowledge the context in which these practices are carried out and why they’re carried out

Sure, agreed. We do need to do those things. We need to do them TOO though, not instead or even second to the rest. We need to do them in parallel I would say. They are not remotely mutually exclusive.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But thats not the point I was making, so I am not sure why you think we are saying similar things. The point I was making was that there is no reason to expect a law applied in our country, and a law applied in a country very very different to our own, to play out the same way.

There is of course. The reasons for which the law are being applied are the same reasons the laws were introduced in other societies, which have led to the issues in those societies, which we don’t have in ours, which makes our society more attractive to immigrants from those societies. They want to experience our freedom, while also staying anchored to their own communities. We see it in countries like the US, the UK and France where they enjoy Western freedom, while staying rigidly within their own communities. It’s no different than when Irish people emigrate to other countries like the UAE, they tend to gravitate towards people from their own communities back home too.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I am certainly more of the same mind as seamus in seeing Parents as stewards of their children rather than owners of them. I see children as individuals under our care, not property under our ownership, and that distinction does drive a lot of the goals and agendas I strive for. If you do not share that distinction then it would go a long way to explaining the fundamental difference of opinion and agenda we have on so many many issues.

Our children who come from us, are our own children. They are not property of course, but they are our children, and they belong to us, with us. I certainly do not see parents as mere custodians. Of course I see children as individuals in their own right, but I see children’s relationship to their parents as far more than simply a legal recognition of a parents role as guardians of their children. That’s why I could never support any initiative which would serve to remove children from their parents, and there is substantial evidence to support the idea that children removed from their parents do not fare better in later life compared to children who remain with their parents and the family is given the support and resources they need. It’s an all too common reaction in threads like this where children are perceived to be at risk, that the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to remove the children from their parents care. It’s an idea which goes against modern best practices in child welfare.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You cant know that now can you. You know it does not stop EVERYONE, but you do not know it does not stop ANYONE. You're being presumptuous again. But again the fact a law does not stop some people breaking it, is no reason not to have that law. We have laws against rape and murder. We have laws against gun crimes in the US too. Does that stop everyone raping and murdering? Does it stop gang wars and gun violence? No it does not. But we still do, and should, maintain those laws. It is a nonsense argument from you here.

A tad facetious, but ok. Seamus’s suggestions were draconian measures to curb what are generally acceptable standards in Western society, and as I suggested there was quite a distance between the cultural norms he was hoping to prohibit, and FGM. It would be akin to the introduction of Sharia, under another name. Perhaps we could call it Seamus.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, agreed. We do need to do those things. We need to do them TOO though, not instead or even second to the rest. We need to do them in parallel I would say. They are not remotely mutually exclusive.

They actually are mutually exclusive, because yourself and seamus are advocating that those people who do not comply with your draconian measures should be punished, separating parents from their children, and for what? Because they pierced their children’s ears? That’s precisely why such draconian measures aren’t even worth entertaining, let alone being used as a way to tackle FGM. If anything all they would do is simply make people who practice FGM even more determined to ensure that the practice doesn’t die out, because they see it as an erasure of their culture.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is of course. The reasons for which the law are being applied are the same reasons the laws were introduced in other societies

You're talking about the REASONS for bringing the laws in in each place. I am not. I am talking about the EFFECTS of bringing them in in both places. Two very very different countries, different people, different population sizes, different cultures, difference policing, different governments. The assumption that a law applied to both would play out in both the same way is just that. An assumption. And not a safe one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Our children who come from us, are our own children. They are not property of course, but they are our children, and they belong to us, with us.

The distinction you are making between "not property" and "belong to us" is not clear here. So I genuinely can not see if you think you are agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or somewhere in between for this reason. But no, I do not think we own people. No one "belongs" to us. "With us" is a better phrase I think, so it is useful you added it. We can be the custodian/steward of our children. We are certainly not their owners, nor are they our belongings.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why I could never support any initiative which would serve to remove children from their parents, and there is substantial evidence to support the idea that children removed from their parents do not fare better in later life

I would disagree with you but not MUCH. In that I would not support any initiative that removes the option of taking children from their parents. But I would want to see that option implemented cautiously, sparingly and as a last resort. There are absolutely situations where children should be removed form their parents. I just see this as the exception not the norm and it should not be an option we can call on easily or on a mere whim. But I would absolutely support an initiative that is clear that it IS an option and WHEN it is an option. To preclude us taking that option ever, would be very dangerous, very naive, very damaging, and very very stupid.

However I would be VERY cautious with looking at your basis for claiming children removed do not "fare better". First, better than what and by what measure? Especially given in the past when studies of success measures went AGAINST your position you first decried the culture that produced those studies and then went on to decry the concept of having measures of success at all in the first place. So it would be a bit rich for you to employ them now.

Second though, how is this evaluated? What is the data? The very fact that there is enough turmoil in their life that we consider removing them at all is ALREADY a predictor that they are unlikely to fare as well as their peers in many ways for example. It is not automatically that we are removing them that is causing that, so try not to make THAT error, but often the reasons we ARE removing them that is the cause of that. Merely pointing out that children removed from their parents fare worse than their peers and assuming this was BECAUSE they were removed from their parents.... would not be a safe assumption. We would need good data to reach that conclusion. Which you have not cited here. It would be similar to assuming that children who's parents divorce fare worse because their parents got divorced. Quite often they suffer not because of the divorce, but the atmosphere, events, issues and relationships that led UP to the final divorce.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s an all too common reaction in threads like this where children are perceived to be at risk

Here we fully agree. But it is Boards.ie. It is to be expected. There is ALWAYS that vocal contingent who jump STRAIGHT to "kick the immie out back home" "take the kids off the parents" "chop the perverts balls off" or whatever the most extreme reaction is to a criminal. They jump straight as a knee jerk to the atomic solution every time.

But I would certainly say that if the parents have three kids, and this the first one they assaulted and mutilated, and they show signs of thinking this is the right thing to do to young girls.... then OPENING UP the conversation on whether taking the other girls off them and out of harms way is certainly a very very legitimate conversation to have. Because if I open the news paper a year from now and find out the same parents just got caught doing the same thing to the next girl..... WE ALL in our society will share a little of the blood on our hands for allowing it to happen. And I am not ready to do that. Are you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A tad facetious, but ok.

It really isn't. It is the core point. This attitude you have of saying "Sure they are not going to respect you not respecting their position anyway" is just white noise. There was a stabbing tonight in London. They are not going to are if we condemn it are they? They are not goin to care their act was illegal are they? They are not going to respect us not respecting THEIR values are they? So the fecking hell what? I do not NEED them to respect my values, or respect my not respecting theirs. I just want/need them to moan about it behind bars where they belong.

We have laws for a reason, and I and those laws care not a jot for whether the people breaking them share our values, or care if we condemn theirs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They actually are mutually exclusive, because yourself and seamus are advocating that those people who do not comply with your draconian measures should be punished, separating parents from their children, and for what?

First I have proposed nothing draconian. Second I have not directly proposed removing them from their children. I think you have lost track of which conversation you are having with which people. All I have said about removal is that it has to be CONSIDERED. Nothing more. If you scroll back and read all my posts, you will find I mentioned that we would have to have things like, for example, a fear they would repeat the crime on their other children.

I do not, and never have, advocated separating parents and children on a whim.

So there is something of a gulf between what I am advocating and what you just put in my mouth alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

used as a way to tackle FGM. If anything all they would do is simply make people who practice FGM even more determined to ensure that the practice doesn’t die out, because they see it as an erasure of their culture.

Which is why these things are NOT mutually exclusive as you pretend. We can make workable laws against certain actions while ALSO working to change and influence culture. I do not see the automatic negation of one by the other that your ongoing pessimism does. But alas all too often you appear more intent on throwing your hands up in defeat before we even begin. And that is just not in my character to be that way myself.

10000maniacs

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

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

Took in your tinfoil lad.

So what should they do with the parents Boggles? What's your position on it?

ILoveYourVibes

They committed a crime here. They shouldn't be deported sentence them harshly let them serve it then deport them.

The child should stay here.

One eyed Jack

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They committed a crime here. They shouldn't be deported sentence them harshly let them serve it then deport them.

The child should stay here.

Only the father is the subject of a deportation order in this particular case. The mother is an Irish citizen -


He told the court the female accused is an Irish citizen, but that the male accused is the subject of a deportation order which is under appeal.

The couple have three young children, the youngest of whom is 11 months old and still being breastfed by the female accused, the defence noted.


I don’t know why you would advocate separating the children from their parents when the vast majority of evidence we have suggests that it is generally not in children’s best interests to separate them from their parents, that the long term negative effects of separation by far outweigh any short term positive effects.

tdf7187

Glad to see a conviction here, but tip of a rather large iceberg.

Religion of Peace?