Saturday, November 22, 2008

EU States Do Little To Prevent Female Genital Mutilation

Who cares about Women's Rights, we've got big, scary Muslims to appease:

The European Court is to rule on the case of an Irish-based African mother who fears her children will be subjected to female genital mutilation if she is forced back to Nigeria. Such treatment is classified by the UN as torture - but there's no agreement on how to counter it, writes CAROL COULTER.

THE CASE of Pamela Izevbekhai, which is now going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, highlights the practice of female genital mutilation widely carried out in many African and some Asian countries, and the response of asylum decision-making bodies in Europe.

The practice of removing parts of a girl's genitals before she can be considered an adult pre-dates the advent of religions such as Islam and Christianity,

(Pastorius note: What the hell does Christianity have to do with this? The answer is, nothing. They only brought Christianity into the discussion to deflect criticism from Islam. Ridiculous.)

 and is deeply rooted in countries like Egypt, Sudan, Togo, Kenya and Nigeria. 

(Pastorius note: All Muslim countries. This is a Muslim problem. Though the practice does pre-date Islam, it is promoted in Islam, and that is the only major culture in which it is promoted at this date. And, if you don't believe it is promoted in Islam, then tell me, why is it that Muslim countries insist that an Imam be present to answer questions whenever the UN discusses the subject?)

It can lead to death through severe bleeding, neurogenic shock as a result of pain and trauma, or infection and septicaemia. It also leads to ongoing medical, gynaecological and psychological problems for many of those who endure it.

The UN has characterised it as torture, and has said that states have the responsibility to take all the necessary measures to eradicate it. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Novak, considers that it falls within his mandate and has raised his concerns with the governments of states where it is prevalent.

In many of those states it is either outlawed by domestic law (like in Egypt), or the states have signed up to international conventions against torture, which cover it. The Nigerian government has stated its opposition to the practice, and its constitution outlaws inhuman and degrading treatment.

However, this has not brought the practice to an end, and it is estimated as being prevalent in about 25 per cent of Nigeria. The Nigerian government is ineffective in its enforcement of its policy, according to Siobhán Mulally, law lecturer in UCC and chairwoman of the Refugee Council.

The risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation has formed the basis for claims for asylum status. The first state to recognise it as a ground for granting asylum was the United States, where a girl from Togo was granted refugee status when the risk she was under was recognised as persecution. Since then, other countries have also granted asylum on this basis.

The High Court has also ruled that female genital mutilation falls within the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment. However, when a person faced with this threat seeks asylum, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal will assess, not whether the threat exists, but whether there is adequate protection from it in the woman's or girl's country of origin.

Such protection can come in two forms - either the existence of laws and structures to which women can appeal for protection, or the possibility of relocation within the country to a place where the practice is not carried out and where they will be safe from those wishing to impose it.

Noeline Blackwell, who is an asylum expert and director of Flac, the legal rights organisation, said that relocation is often not an option for a young person in Nigeria. "It is not like saying to a young person to go from Cork to Dublin," she said, adding that a young woman in Nigeria comes under the control of her parents until she marries, and is then under the control of her husband and his family.

The use of relocation internally as an answer to the threat of inhuman and degrading treatment has been examined by the European Court of Human Rights, according to Mulally, where it found that this has to be a reasonable option in all the circumstances of the case. This took into account the personal and economic circumstances of the applicant, and his or her ability to move around. "Ireland is very progressive in recognising gender-based violence in the Refugee Act," she said. "But there are no guidelines on implementing a protection regime, or on looking at relocation from a gender perspective."

The European Court in Strasbourg will now be looking at whether it is reasonable to expect the Izevbekhai family to relocate in all the circumstances of the case, and whether it will be safe. Even if it finds it is not, this will not endow refugee status. It will mean, however, that the family cannot be sent back.

In other news, Islam-inspired Child Marriage is up 80% in the UK.


Damien said...


Stuff like this will only stop when enough of us have the courage to stand up for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

News Blackout. 12 BNP activists arrested for handing out Islamophobic leaflets in Liverpool

Pastorius said...

Amazing, huh?

Men are lopping off the clitorises of girls in the name of religion, and no one has the guts to put a stop to it.

Oh sure, we'll condemn it, but we won't stop it.

Pastorius said...

Islam is a religion, not a race. Until the BNP stops framing it as a racial issue, they will not win me over.

You yourself might well recognize that it is not a racial issue, but the BNP does not seem to recognize that truth.


Reliapundit said...

scandis moving to ban male circumcision tho'...

Damien said...


Do you mean Scandinavia? Why would the do that? Male circumcision is much more humane than female circumcision.

Damien said...


Than the Anti_Defamation_League should be on their case. There's no excuse for that, especially since the holocaust. Not to mention that unlike Islam, the west has little to fear from Judaism.

NovaBrite said...

Actually this is also practiced frequently in some more Christian countries. It is still practiced in Nigeria, often by the Christian population. Unfortunately, the practice stems from cultural misunderstandings and general misogyny. The practice pre-dates Christianity (and therefore Islam, as Christianity predates Islam), and no part of the Muslim holy texts endorses or requires female genital cutting; it is merely a cultural practice in many areas, which happen to be Muslim, as it is also a practice in some areas, which happen to be Christian. Either way, it is barbaric and harmful. Arguing about its origins, does nothing to stop the practice.

Pastorius said...

You're right. It is not specifically an Islamic practice. But, Muslims are actively involved in attempting to perpetuate it and they do so because they believe it is an Islamic practice.

In recent weeks, both the US Academy of Pediatrics and the Australian Board of Medicine have considered adding a mild form of FGM to the practices of their respective countries.

Thank God, the American Board of Pediatrics decided against it. But, the Aussies have decided to go with it.

Western Nations would not be pursuing such idiocy if not for the pressure of Islam.

Damien said...


That may well be, but I don't think I've never heard that it is more widely practice in some Christian countries than in most Islamic countries. Can you sight the source for those statistics?

Anonymous said...

Sadly it is mostly women performing the procedures.