Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:46 pm  

LGJM wrote: Do you know whether the people who push for FGM are male or female? Do you know whether the new parents go along with this or whether they are pushed into it by their more traditional parents? If you have a good knowledge of the customs in all these countries and can accurately judge who was involved in arranging it then you can begin to determine who is the guilty party. But convicting a mother of arranging the FGM of her daughter when it may have been completely against her wishes, sending her to jail and ripping her family from her is unlikely to catch on as good practice. In your straw man, the mother would clearly under UK law not be convicted, but don’t let that stop your ranting. LGJM wrote: Is male circumcision child abuse? If done for purely religious reasons then, as a statement of fact not law, I would say yes, though for obvious (to most) reasons, it is a much less significant procedure medically and isn’t aimed at sexually crippling the child. You can’t sensibly compare it to the evils of FGM. It does create the risk of totally unnecessary infections and other problems but equally is a medical procedure that can be done on legitimate health grounds too, and basically the child can often get on with his life pretty much unaffected. It’s not a parallel, and the medical opinions on the outcome areequivocal. There are many cases where children suffer unnecessarily or even die as a result, for example the case Goodluck Caubergs which led to the conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence of nurse Grace Adeleye who carried out the circumcision. The court heard that up to three children a month are admitted to the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital because of bleeding after home-based circumcisions. However, the POINT is, as the Law Commission found maybe 20 years ago, male circumcision for non-medical reasons is not unlawful in the UK even though it felt a law should be passed to make the position crystal clear, and as the practice is therefore not against the law, unlike FGM which is so plainly against the law, there is no sensible comparison to be drawn. As a statement of law, male circumcision is NOT child abuse as UK law presently stands and so I accept that position. LGJM wrote: It is pretty clear that the UK and the WHO are vehemently against FGM and the choice to label it FGM rather than simply circumcision shows their stance. No, it shows that they know what is involved and that you clearly don’t. LGJM wrote: But labeling the parents of 1.25m children and women as child abusers is utterly ridiculous. It is child abuse but my concern is not with labels, just with preventing the abuse, and if too late for that, bringing those responsible to justice. LGJM wrote: We can't protect young English girls from being forced into prostitution by Pakistani gangs, Of course we can, and are. Hopefully many lessons have been learned from the failures and inactions of the past, and increasing number of cases where the law has dealt with offenders, and there are dozens of initiatives which a second on Google would educate you about. However the fact that other types of child abuse go on seems to be a very weird argument against action to stop FGM. LGJM wrote: but we have loving foster parents ready for young immigrant children who have just been stripped from their homes and families? Look, if a girl is at genuine risk of FGM then it follows as a civilized country and if there is no alternative, then we should and must remove her from harm’s way. If the risk goes away she can go back. I entirely reject any shortage of foster carers or care home places, if there were one, as any sort of justification for allowing girls to be mutilated. FA wrote: However the main aim in this area must surely be to identify girls at RISK of being subjected to FGM and taking steps to prevent it from happening in the first place. LGJM wrote: How do you propose doing that? There are many and sensible proposals and initiatives some of which I already linked to. Those who know about the subject seem to have very good ideas how to tackle it. All that is needed is the government to back and actively support them for a decent start to be made. If you can’t be bothered to read the links then a fair summary would be identifying children and communities at risk, educating them, and at the same time ensuring they also realize the criminality of these practices. LGJM wrote: So the NHS estimates 60,000 UK females have had this performed on them. So I'd guess that'd amount to roughly 100,000+ children who you want to forcibly remove from their home and assume responsibility for. Good luck with that. Leaving aside that very many of these are adult females of a range of ages, I don’t get your argument. Is it really that because there are lots of victims, we should just leave them to it? LGJM wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... rged-court It seems they go to trial in January Great. About time a start was made, and identifying and prosecuting the (alleged) butchers is an excellent place to begin. LGJM wrote: What's your source for this? I have heard this from several places. Here’s one: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvonne-ossei/female-genital-mutilation_1_b_1822156.html LGJM wrote: I don't want this to continue. I just think your solution to the problem is ridiculous. As if I claimed I “have the solution”! Your conclusion that the numbers are too high so we should just leave them to it is the laissez faire equivalent of wanting it to continue, though. Your “solution” (“Well, I’m against it of course but lots do it so what can we do”) I find just totally unacceptable and alarmingly defeatist. LGJM wrote: But I do think that this is the argument from one side and there seems to be no attempt whatsoever to accept there is any other point of view. I guess they just aren't civilised enough to be listened to and should just accept what we say. They, like everyone else, should obey the law of the land. LGJM wrote: But my main view is that it is a massively difficult issue No, that is just an utterly banal stating of the obvious. As for the rest - I challenge you to answer one single question, then: Read this, from one of my links: A seven-year-old girl is screaming hysterically in a secluded room. She has just had her clitoris cut off, her vagina sewn together and the surrounding areas of her genitalia burnt with corrosives. Her legs have been tied together and for months she will not be able to walk. Furthermore she will have no choice but to urinate through her fleshy wounds. The physical pain and psychological trauma will haunt her until the day she dies, unless she bleeds to death first. Just before the procedure starts, your task is to articulate to this 7 year old girl the “other side of the argument”, and the “other point of view”, as to why you feel there is a case to be made for the procedure to go ahead. Go on. The floor is yours.

LGJM wrote: Do you know whether the people who push for FGM are male or female? Do you know whether the new parents go along with this or whether they are pushed into it by their more traditional parents? If you have a good knowledge of the customs in all these countries and can accurately judge who was involved in arranging it then you can begin to determine who is the guilty party. But convicting a mother of arranging the FGM of her daughter when it may have been completely against her wishes, sending her to jail and ripping her family from her is unlikely to catch on as good practice. In your straw man, the mother would clearly under UK law not be convicted, but don’t let that stop your ranting. LGJM wrote: Is male circumcision child abuse? If done for purely religious reasons then, as a statement of fact not law, I would say yes, though for obvious (to most) reasons, it is a much less significant procedure medically and isn’t aimed at sexually crippling the child. You can’t sensibly compare it to the evils of FGM. It does create the risk of totally unnecessary infections and other problems but equally is a medical procedure that can be done on legitimate health grounds too, and basically the child can often get on with his life pretty much unaffected. It’s not a parallel, and the medical opinions on the outcome areequivocal. There are many cases where children suffer unnecessarily or even die as a result, for example the case Goodluck Caubergs which led to the conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence of nurse Grace Adeleye who carried out the circumcision. The court heard that up to three children a month are admitted to the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital because of bleeding after home-based circumcisions. However, the POINT is, as the Law Commission found maybe 20 years ago, male circumcision for non-medical reasons is not unlawful in the UK even though it felt a law should be passed to make the position crystal clear, and as the practice is therefore not against the law, unlike FGM which is so plainly against the law, there is no sensible comparison to be drawn. As a statement of law, male circumcision is NOT child abuse as UK law presently stands and so I accept that position. LGJM wrote: It is pretty clear that the UK and the WHO are vehemently against FGM and the choice to label it FGM rather than simply circumcision shows their stance. No, it shows that they know what is involved and that you clearly don’t. LGJM wrote: But labeling the parents of 1.25m children and women as child abusers is utterly ridiculous. It is child abuse but my concern is not with labels, just with preventing the abuse, and if too late for that, bringing those responsible to justice. LGJM wrote: We can't protect young English girls from being forced into prostitution by Pakistani gangs, Of course we can, and are. Hopefully many lessons have been learned from the failures and inactions of the past, and increasing number of cases where the law has dealt with offenders, and there are dozens of initiatives which a second on Google would educate you about. However the fact that other types of child abuse go on seems to be a very weird argument against action to stop FGM. LGJM wrote: but we have loving foster parents ready for young immigrant children who have just been stripped from their homes and families? Look, if a girl is at genuine risk of FGM then it follows as a civilized country and if there is no alternative, then we should and must remove her from harm’s way. If the risk goes away she can go back. I entirely reject any shortage of foster carers or care home places, if there were one, as any sort of justification for allowing girls to be mutilated. FA wrote: However the main aim in this area must surely be to identify girls at RISK of being subjected to FGM and taking steps to prevent it from happening in the first place. LGJM wrote: How do you propose doing that? There are many and sensible proposals and initiatives some of which I already linked to. Those who know about the subject seem to have very good ideas how to tackle it. All that is needed is the government to back and actively support them for a decent start to be made. If you can’t be bothered to read the links then a fair summary would be identifying children and communities at risk, educating them, and at the same time ensuring they also realize the criminality of these practices. LGJM wrote: So the NHS estimates 60,000 UK females have had this performed on them. So I'd guess that'd amount to roughly 100,000+ children who you want to forcibly remove from their home and assume responsibility for. Good luck with that. Leaving aside that very many of these are adult females of a range of ages, I don’t get your argument. Is it really that because there are lots of victims, we should just leave them to it? LGJM wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... rged-court It seems they go to trial in January Great. About time a start was made, and identifying and prosecuting the (alleged) butchers is an excellent place to begin. LGJM wrote: What's your source for this? I have heard this from several places. Here’s one: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvonne-ossei/female-genital-mutilation_1_b_1822156.html LGJM wrote: I don't want this to continue. I just think your solution to the problem is ridiculous. As if I claimed I “have the solution”! Your conclusion that the numbers are too high so we should just leave them to it is the laissez faire equivalent of wanting it to continue, though. Your “solution” (“Well, I’m against it of course but lots do it so what can we do”) I find just totally unacceptable and alarmingly defeatist. LGJM wrote: But I do think that this is the argument from one side and there seems to be no attempt whatsoever to accept there is any other point of view. I guess they just aren't civilised enough to be listened to and should just accept what we say. They, like everyone else, should obey the law of the land. LGJM wrote: But my main view is that it is a massively difficult issue No, that is just an utterly banal stating of the obvious. As for the rest - I challenge you to answer one single question, then: Read this, from one of my links: A seven-year-old girl is screaming hysterically in a secluded room. She has just had her clitoris cut off, her vagina sewn together and the surrounding areas of her genitalia burnt with corrosives. Her legs have been tied together and for months she will not be able to walk. Furthermore she will have no choice but to urinate through her fleshy wounds. The physical pain and psychological trauma will haunt her until the day she dies, unless she bleeds to death first. Just before the procedure starts, your task is to articulate to this 7 year old girl the “other side of the argument”, and the “other point of view”, as to why you feel there is a case to be made for the procedure to go ahead. Go on. The floor is yours.

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:26 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: In your straw man, the mother would clearly under UK law not be convicted, but don’t let that stop your ranting. Here's what you wrote earlier: If a girl is found on medical examination to have suffered FGM, a prosecution shuld be brought. You do not get sexually mutilated by accident and no jury would believe that it happened without the knowledge of the parents. One frequent outcome of such mutual defences for assorted crimes is BOTH being convicted. I have faith in juries in general to see straight through bogus defences, and I am sure you grossly underestimate how hard it is to mount a fake defence in police questioning without tripping yourself and each other up. You have faith that the juries, and before them the police and CPS, have the ability and knowledge of these countries to be able to determine who performed this operations, when they did it and who organised them. I don't have faith that they can do that. And that's mainly why the CPS will always struggle with putting forward a prosecution, even if they were willing to prosecute the parents. Which I'm not sure they are and suspect they aren't. No, it shows that they know what is involved and that you clearly don’t. And they have made the case very well in English to an English speaking audience. But is this case being made to African immigrants with limited, if any, knowledge of English? One of the links you posted had a woman who talked with other women. They had had the procedure performed on them and suffered no ill effects and didn't understand the problem, they said that their mothers and grandmothers had also had it done. They didn't understand what the issue was. You want to castigate them as evil child abusers because they have performed FGM on their children. But it is an English label and an English crime outlawing a practice that mainly occurs in Africa. I know that in Britain ignorance of the law is no defence, but anyone with any sense must accept that there are difficulties with educating immigrants to our country that their customs are illegal and outlawed here. Look, if a girl is at genuine risk of FGM then it follows as a civilized country and if there is no alternative, then we should and must remove her from harm’s way. If the risk goes away she can go back. I entirely reject any shortage of foster carers or care home places, if there were one, as any sort of justification for allowing girls to be mutilated. How do you determine that a girl is at risk of FGM? Unless you are proposing a ban of children returning back to their home country from England then you clearly can't. There are many and sensible proposals and initiatives some of which I already linked to. Those who know about the subject seem to have very good ideas how to tackle it. All that is needed is the government to back and actively support them for a decent start to be made. If you can’t be bothered to read the links then a fair summary would be identifying children and communities at risk, educating them, and at the same time ensuring they also realize the criminality of these practices. That I don't have a problem with. What I have a problem with is your suggesting of criminalising parents for this and taking children away from their families over this. Have you got a link of anyone else suggesting this? Leaving aside that very many of these are adult females of a range of ages, I don’t get your argument. Is it really that because there are lots of victims, we should just leave them to it? No, my argument is that this is a massive difference between the cultures of the western world and the cultures of poor African and Middle East countries. IMO you're arguing that we need to go to war with these people, by throwing these child abusers in jail and taking their kids away. I'm arguing for diplomacy, for educating them and convincing them that they should abandon their practices. I have heard this from several places. Here’s one: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvonne-ossei/female-genital-mutilation_1_b_1822156.html See, I think this is really good education for huffpost readers, I'm sure it will play really well with readers of the Guardian as well. But it is very much written from a British perspective for a British audience. I'm not sure there's any attempt whatsoever to even begin to address the situation from an African perspective. As if I claimed I “have the solution”! Your conclusion that the numbers are too high so we should just leave them to it is the laissez faire equivalent of wanting it to continue, though. Your “solution” (“Well, I’m against it of course but lots do it so what can we do”) I find just totally unacceptable and alarmingly defeatist. I think your "solution" would be rejected by even members of the BNP as too extreme. They'd probably like your solution, but they wouldn't be brave enough to endorse it. They, like everyone else, should obey the law of the land. Which is fine if you know about the law and understand it. A little more difficult if you know three words of English and have no comprehension of what FGM is. No, that is just an utterly banal stating of the obvious. As for the rest - I challenge you to answer one single question, then: Read this, from one of my links: A seven-year-old girl is screaming hysterically in a secluded room. She has just had her clitoris cut off, her vagina sewn together and the surrounding areas of her genitalia burnt with corrosives. Her legs have been tied together and for months she will not be able to walk. Furthermore she will have no choice but to urinate through her fleshy wounds. The physical pain and psychological trauma will haunt her until the day she dies, unless she bleeds to death first. Just before the procedure starts, your task is to articulate to this 7 year old girl the “other side of the argument”, and the “other point of view”, as to why you feel there is a case to be made for the procedure to go ahead. Go on. The floor is yours. I've never once said that I support FGM or understand why it's performed, so I reject your ridiculous task just like I reject your ridiculous solution. I would ask you to explain to a 7 year old girl why her loving parents are in jail for supposedly abusing her when she has no knowledge or any ill effects from a procedure that was performed when she was a baby.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: In your straw man, the mother would clearly under UK law not be convicted, but don’t let that stop your ranting. Here's what you wrote earlier: If a girl is found on medical examination to have suffered FGM, a prosecution shuld be brought. You do not get sexually mutilated by accident and no jury would believe that it happened without the knowledge of the parents. One frequent outcome of such mutual defences for assorted crimes is BOTH being convicted. I have faith in juries in general to see straight through bogus defences, and I am sure you grossly underestimate how hard it is to mount a fake defence in police questioning without tripping yourself and each other up. You have faith that the juries, and before them the police and CPS, have the ability and knowledge of these countries to be able to determine who performed this operations, when they did it and who organised them. I don't have faith that they can do that. And that's mainly why the CPS will always struggle with putting forward a prosecution, even if they were willing to prosecute the parents. Which I'm not sure they are and suspect they aren't. No, it shows that they know what is involved and that you clearly don’t. And they have made the case very well in English to an English speaking audience. But is this case being made to African immigrants with limited, if any, knowledge of English? One of the links you posted had a woman who talked with other women. They had had the procedure performed on them and suffered no ill effects and didn't understand the problem, they said that their mothers and grandmothers had also had it done. They didn't understand what the issue was. You want to castigate them as evil child abusers because they have performed FGM on their children. But it is an English label and an English crime outlawing a practice that mainly occurs in Africa. I know that in Britain ignorance of the law is no defence, but anyone with any sense must accept that there are difficulties with educating immigrants to our country that their customs are illegal and outlawed here. Look, if a girl is at genuine risk of FGM then it follows as a civilized country and if there is no alternative, then we should and must remove her from harm’s way. If the risk goes away she can go back. I entirely reject any shortage of foster carers or care home places, if there were one, as any sort of justification for allowing girls to be mutilated. How do you determine that a girl is at risk of FGM? Unless you are proposing a ban of children returning back to their home country from England then you clearly can't. There are many and sensible proposals and initiatives some of which I already linked to. Those who know about the subject seem to have very good ideas how to tackle it. All that is needed is the government to back and actively support them for a decent start to be made. If you can’t be bothered to read the links then a fair summary would be identifying children and communities at risk, educating them, and at the same time ensuring they also realize the criminality of these practices. That I don't have a problem with. What I have a problem with is your suggesting of criminalising parents for this and taking children away from their families over this. Have you got a link of anyone else suggesting this? Leaving aside that very many of these are adult females of a range of ages, I don’t get your argument. Is it really that because there are lots of victims, we should just leave them to it? No, my argument is that this is a massive difference between the cultures of the western world and the cultures of poor African and Middle East countries. IMO you're arguing that we need to go to war with these people, by throwing these child abusers in jail and taking their kids away. I'm arguing for diplomacy, for educating them and convincing them that they should abandon their practices. I have heard this from several places. Here’s one: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvonne-ossei/female-genital-mutilation_1_b_1822156.html See, I think this is really good education for huffpost readers, I'm sure it will play really well with readers of the Guardian as well. But it is very much written from a British perspective for a British audience. I'm not sure there's any attempt whatsoever to even begin to address the situation from an African perspective. As if I claimed I “have the solution”! Your conclusion that the numbers are too high so we should just leave them to it is the laissez faire equivalent of wanting it to continue, though. Your “solution” (“Well, I’m against it of course but lots do it so what can we do”) I find just totally unacceptable and alarmingly defeatist. I think your "solution" would be rejected by even members of the BNP as too extreme. They'd probably like your solution, but they wouldn't be brave enough to endorse it. They, like everyone else, should obey the law of the land. Which is fine if you know about the law and understand it. A little more difficult if you know three words of English and have no comprehension of what FGM is. No, that is just an utterly banal stating of the obvious. As for the rest - I challenge you to answer one single question, then: Read this, from one of my links: A seven-year-old girl is screaming hysterically in a secluded room. She has just had her clitoris cut off, her vagina sewn together and the surrounding areas of her genitalia burnt with corrosives. Her legs have been tied together and for months she will not be able to walk. Furthermore she will have no choice but to urinate through her fleshy wounds. The physical pain and psychological trauma will haunt her until the day she dies, unless she bleeds to death first. Just before the procedure starts, your task is to articulate to this 7 year old girl the “other side of the argument”, and the “other point of view”, as to why you feel there is a case to be made for the procedure to go ahead. Go on. The floor is yours. I've never once said that I support FGM or understand why it's performed, so I reject your ridiculous task just like I reject your ridiculous solution. I would ask you to explain to a 7 year old girl why her loving parents are in jail for supposedly abusing her when she has no knowledge or any ill effects from a procedure that was performed when she was a baby.

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:36 pm  

FGM is not performed on babies. It is performed on young girls.

While no ill effects may result initially once a woman starts to have sex or gets pregnant is when problems occur, particularly during child birth.

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:18 pm  

dr_feelgood wrote: FGM is not performed on babies. It is performed on young girls. Type IV: Type IV includes the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina. This form is practiced to a much lesser extent than the other forms in Nigeria. These procedures can take place anytime from a few days after birth to a few days after death. In Edo State, for example, the procedure is performed within a few days after birth. http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/u ... igeria.pdf Page 2

dr_feelgood wrote: FGM is not performed on babies. It is performed on young girls. Type IV: Type IV includes the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina. This form is practiced to a much lesser extent than the other forms in Nigeria. These procedures can take place anytime from a few days after birth to a few days after death. In Edo State, for example, the procedure is performed within a few days after birth. http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/u ... igeria.pdf Page 2

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Type IV: Type IV includes the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina. This form is practiced to a much lesser extent than the other forms in Nigeria. These procedures can take place anytime from a few days after birth to a few days after death. In Edo State, for example, the procedure is performed within a few days after birth. http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/u ... igeria.pdf Page 2 I stand corrected. You accept my second point though?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Type IV: Type IV includes the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina. This form is practiced to a much lesser extent than the other forms in Nigeria. These procedures can take place anytime from a few days after birth to a few days after death. In Edo State, for example, the procedure is performed within a few days after birth. http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeria/u ... igeria.pdf Page 2 I stand corrected. You accept my second point though?

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:27 pm  

dr_feelgood wrote:

I stand corrected.

You accept my second point though?

Of course. I'm not arguing in favour of FGM. From everything I've read I am against it and strongly doubt that there is any reason that the practitioners will come up with which will suit us in the west. And as Africa is a mainly poor continent with poor medical services any unnecessary medical procedure would be better off not done.

It's just his FGM = child abuse = prosecute parents and take away kids solution that I completely object to.

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:46 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

In terms of Rotherham, most of the "coming to the attention of the authorities" of these girls was simply the fact that young teen tearaways were getting themselves older Asian boyfriends. Pre-Savile that knowledge was worth virtually nothing. Just as the police can't treat every black man as a potential mugger because a high proportion of convicted muggers are black, neither can the police just start pulling Asians for having white girlfriends.

I hope you watched the Panorama programme on Monday night. Then you may have at least a clue as to just how abjectly wrong you are.

Re: Rotherham : Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:20 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You have faith that the juries, and before them the police and CPS, have the ability and knowledge of these countries to be able to determine who performed this operations, when they did it and who organised them

You are confusing different things. If a child was mutilated in the past before coming to this country then no crime has been committed in this country and no prosecution can be brought.

A whole different kettle of fish is the practice of taking young girls abroad for the purpose of FGM. Everything possible must be done to prevent this.

We have a decent enough judicial system, warts and all. If only its wheels could be set in motion on FGM crimes, I’m sure it would produce in the main just outcomes.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

One of the links you posted had a woman who talked with other women. They had had the procedure performed on them and suffered no ill effects and didn't understand the problem, they said that their mothers and grandmothers had also had it done. They didn't understand what the issue was.

And so you cite that as making it all OK, or at least tolerable?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I know that in Britain ignorance of the law is no defence, but anyone with any sense must accept that there are difficulties with educating immigrants to our country that their customs are illegal and outlawed here.

I’m the one supporting a serious and effective effort to educate, and to inform that in the country in which they now live, FGM is a serious crime.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

How do you determine that a girl is at risk of FGM?

There is a whole literature on just this subject. In many ways it is no more and no less difficult than identifying children at risk of any other form of sexual abuse, in any section of the community. It is a shiit and demanding job, but that should never prevent us from doing it. In another of your naïve posts you cited the Rotherham case – that is what you get when the authorities neglect their duties.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Unless you are proposing a ban of children returning back to their home country from England then you clearly can't.

That is exactly such a thing as I propose, in a case where there are grounds to suspect that the purpose of an intended trip is for FGM.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

What I have a problem with is your suggesting of criminalising parents for this and taking children away from their families over this

I have never made this suggestion, though. I have suggested that people in the UK who commit serious crimes under UK law should be prosecuted under UK law. Parents of children are no exception. I do not advocate ignoring crime due to cultural or religious differences, which is what I understand you do.

If a parent is guilty of a crime then they should be dealt with by the criminal law. I am not “advocating” jailing them, I have faith in the criminal courts to, in the main, impose the correct sentences on convicted people, and if the COURT decides that jail is inevitable then so be it.

I am not “advocating” taking children from their families or putting them in care. I am saying that if a child is found to be at serious risk of FGM then social services need to do their job to protect the child, which may indeed involve removing them from the family. Or may not. I advocate the enquiries being diligently made, and if the evidence is there, then the required steps to be taken, not shirked from for fear of upsetting some section of a community or other or some religious or cultural sensibilities or whatever.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I'm arguing for diplomacy, for educating them and convincing them that they should abandon their practices.

A similar argument to mine, except I would tell them that their practices are absolutely and unequivocally forbidden, whether they are “convinced” is not my concern. They need to know that desisting is not optional.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But it is very much written from a British perspective for a British audience. I'm not sure there's any attempt whatsoever to even begin to address the situation from an African perspective.

We’re not in Africa.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I've never once said that I support FGM or understand why it's performed, so I reject your ridiculous task

I’m glad you have clearly therefore got the point, even if you have a weird way of admitting it..

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I would ask you to explain to a 7 year old girl why her loving parents are in jail for supposedly abusing her when she has no knowledge or any ill effects from a procedure that was performed when she was a baby.

I am assuming that the swear filter changed your original adjective for the parents to “loving”?
If your absurd scenario ever happened, including the strange case of a bay FGM, with “no ill effects” (how can having had your clitoris cut off constitute “no ill effects”, even to your way of thinking?) then I would explain that they were in jail because UK justice had considered all relevant facts and evidence and rules that this was the most just outcome. The court decided they deserved it.

I really don’t know why you would propose a weird scenario where somehow the passage of time mitigates the evil of the act. What if a baby girl’s father has repeatedly raped and buggered her some years ago? She may be less likely to have ill effects as serious as those from FGM and she may be more likely to remember FGM than rape or buggery as a toddler. Once his offending eventually comes to light, should he escape prosecution when she has no knowledge or any ill effects from a procedure that was performed when she was a baby?
Obviously not, so why would it be any different if the crime was FGM rather than any other serious crime?

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:53 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I hope you watched the Panorama programme on Monday night. Then you may have at least a clue as to just how abjectly wrong you are.

I'm in the middle of watching a film right now, but I'll watch it on iPlayer later.

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:28 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

A whole different kettle of fish is the practice of taking young girls abroad for the purpose of FGM. Everything possible must be done to prevent this.

What should be done to prevent this? By whom?

And so you cite that as making it all OK, or at least tolerable?

No, I'm not citing that as saying that it makes it all ok. I'm saying that immigrant women are being questioned in the street about a practice that has been performed on them, their mothers and grandmothers. If they also happened to have a young daughter who they performed this traditional ritual on in the last decade they have probably unwittingly committed a crime that you are insisting is worthy of sending them to jail and having all their children taken from them.

If a mother knows all about the laws and says "screw you, she's my daughter and I'll do what I want to her" then you have a case that she's guilty of child abuse. But if she hasn't been reading the Guardian articles you have and doesn't know that she's even committed a crime then treating her as a child abuser is barbaric treatment for both her and her family.

I’m the one supporting a serious and effective effort to educate, and to inform that in the country in which they now live, FGM is a serious crime.

A campaign that mainly involves investigating them, convicting them and taking their children away from them.

There is a whole literature on just this subject. In many ways it is no more and no less difficult than identifying children at risk of any other form of sexual abuse, in any section of the community.

Unless a family is known to social services or reported by a teacher or doctor then most kids will go through life without being "protected" from sexual abuse. You are pretty much wanting every African immigrant to be automatically flagged as a potential child abuser simply because they have a daughter.

It is a shiit and demanding job, but that should never prevent us from doing it. In another of your naïve posts you cited the Rotherham case – that is what you get when the authorities neglect their duties.

Time will tell whether the Rotherham report was an accurate representation of facts or an attention seeking report to shake the system up.

It also has to be said that while social services have a duty to protect children under their care, they don't have unlimited powers or resources. And just because a white English girl in care had an older Asian boyfriend, it doesn't mean he was pimping her out all the time.

That is exactly such a thing as I propose, in a case where there are grounds to suspect that the purpose of an intended trip is for FGM.

Like I said, you're too extreme for the BNP. They admire you and will probably want to share fund raising ideas, but they can't risk being linked too closely with you.

Who are you wanting to put in charge of banning orders for African families who say they want to take their daughters to visit their grandparents?

I have never made this suggestion, though.

You've made this suggestion many times in this thread.

I have suggested that people in the UK who commit serious crimes under UK law should be prosecuted under UK law. Parents of children are no exception. I do not advocate ignoring crime due to cultural or religious differences, which is what I understand you do.

If a parent is guilty of a crime then they should be dealt with by the criminal law. I am not “advocating” jailing them, I have faith in the criminal courts to, in the main, impose the correct sentences on convicted people, and if the COURT decides that jail is inevitable then so be it.

I am not “advocating” taking children from their families or putting them in care. I am saying that if a child is found to be at serious risk of FGM then social services need to do their job to protect the child, which may indeed involve removing them from the family. Or may not. I advocate the enquiries being diligently made, and if the evidence is there, then the required steps to be taken, not shirked from for fear of upsetting some section of a community or other or some religious or cultural sensibilities or whatever.

You have argued clearly that FGM is child abuse and that the child abusers should be jailed and have their children taken from them.

A similar argument to mine, except I would tell them that their practices are absolutely and unequivocally forbidden, whether they are “convinced” is not my concern. They need to know that desisting is not optional.

Are you doing this by an ad campaign, or are you employing a team of enforcers to go and speak directly to nearly every African immigrant? Do you have the authority to spend all that money?

We’re not in Africa.

But it is a problem with mainly African immigrants, with the procedures performed in Africa. The Guardian readers will probably be 100% against this, and they'll have been roughly 99% against it before their campaign against it. But the campaigns against this, the plays that a British African woman performs in London, they're not much use if the immigrants aren't Guardian readers and aren't going to see her play.

I’m glad you have clearly therefore got the point, even if you have a weird way of admitting it..

The point is to not to engage with the 7 year old girl who is having the procedure on her and convince her why it's needed, because very few people here ever thought it was needed. The point is that we need to engage with African parents and the African villagers who are arranging these procedures and persuade them to stop.

I am assuming that the swear filter changed your original adjective for the parents to “loving”?

Well you're assuming wrong.

If your absurd scenario ever happened, including the strange case of a bay FGM, with “no ill effects” (how can having had your clitoris cut off constitute “no ill effects”, even to your way of thinking?)

If you read your links, there are plenty of girls who have had FGM performed on them and didn't actually know. There are British doctors and nurses who perform check ups on children and they don't know what to look for.

then I would explain that they were in jail because UK justice had considered all relevant facts and evidence and rules that this was the most just outcome. The court decided they deserved it.

I wouldn't convict her if she stabbed you to death. If your car was blown up in an attempt on your life I wouldn't consider them terrorists, I'd consider them freedom fighters.

I really don’t know why you would propose a weird scenario where somehow the passage of time mitigates the evil of the act.

You consider it to be an evil act. Many African women don't. I personally believe that African women's viewpoint on African women's vagina's are actually worth more than yours.

I think that many Papua New Guinean tribes have screwed up traditions with their boys (and probably girls) which would definitely be considered child abuse in the west. I implore you to go and educate them about their abuse of their children and I will mourn your death when they kill you and eat you.

What if a baby girl’s father has repeatedly raped and buggered her some years ago? She may be less likely to have ill effects as serious as those from FGM and she may be more likely to remember FGM than rape or buggery as a toddler. Once his offending eventually comes to light, should he escape prosecution when she has no knowledge or any ill effects from a procedure that was performed when she was a baby?
Obviously not, so why would it be any different if the crime was FGM rather than any other serious crime?

Virtually 100% of the UK are united in their disgust of child abusers. If public opinion was followed by the government then the punishment for child abuse would probably be slow death.

The same clearly cannot be said for FGM in Africa. There are millions of people who are for FGM, have had it performed on them and want it performed on their children.

They are clearly not the same issues, and I think you are in a very small minority of people who think they are.