Waa wada sidaa...wey afdheeryihiin without an iota of tact. A good few years ago, I attended a Somali conference with my father and he met some men he knew there. The first thing they asked was "War wiil ma kuu dhashay mise islaantii baad weli ag fadhidaa? Maad mid kale guursatid Ilaahay baa ku leh e". I was gobsmacked...my mouth was hanging open in shock. They were insulting my mum (and us) with both of us standing there! My father made a sardonic comment and walked away. But I was seething with rage. I wanted to insult them and smack them with my shoes...God, I feel enraged just remembering it. :mad: So, Zakina, I know how you feel.

^^ Sure. Ambiguities exist, but not when it comes to FGM. I don't know how much more harmful you can be to your child. Perhaps it would have hit different sensibilities if another part of her body was mutilated, like maybe her face? I don't know. I think you are taking it too lightly.

^^ Attention seeking as always, eh? Waa laguu baqaa. Originally posted by ThePoint: I don't know - it seems to me you're being overly simplistic. We all agree FGM is horrible but the question is what to do afterward and whether the Swedish govt's stance is consistent and proper. It is interference if the girl has chosen to undergo this procedure and is 10 years of age at least. The government has not chosen to interfere in homosexual liasons between 2 consenting individuals. The question is less about the laws on the books than about the internal consistency of 'liberal' Sweden's laws. In a 'liberal' country like Sweden what is 'right' or 'acceptable' doesn't come into play if both parties are willing and desirous. In theory - there should be no law specifically against FGM in Sweden - only apply that against child abuse and mutilation(without consent because of course consensual mutilation is perfectly alright). Hello, Rather than oversimplying the matter, I was actually giving it the gravity it deserves. Parents have a resposibility to and for their children, but they don't have a right to harm them in any way. If or when they do harm their child, the police and state must step in to protect the child. What exactly is so difficult about understanding this? Second, I have no idea why comparisons are being made between parents mutilating their daughter and homosexuals. What's the relevance? Is it to do with consent? If so, it leads me beautifully to my next point. But you're missing the point: Can children ever really consent? What constitutes a punishible crime with regard to acts performed on children who are unable to 'consent'? Do we give the state the right to determine that parents have acted in a cruel capacity with regard to consent for children or does that appropriately belong to the parents? The point I was making is that separate from the act itself there are underlying complexities. Consent. What does it mean exactly? "The voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding". Ah...now we can make some headway. Can children give their consent? Apparently so...till they are blue in the face in fact, but it wouldn't make any difference. Their consent is invalid without their parents consent. This is the reason why schools, police officers, doctors etc, cannot sneeze in the direction of a child without first getting the parents' permission. So, it's the PARENTS that give consent on behalf of their children (guessing it has something to do with being adults who can make informed and well-thought out decisions). So coming back to whether parents have a green light to abuse their children or not, I reckon they don't. In answer to another stolid question, "What constitutes a punishible crime with regard to acts performed on children who are unable to 'consent'", I would probably say, anything which harms the child and/or is against the law in the country the child resides in. Hardly mind-boggling, is it? To expand a little further, since parents are responsible for their children, they are liable for any harm that befalls them while they are in their care. When the child is at school, the school is responsible for them and if anything happens to them, the school is liable. Same with nurseries and play schemes. Same with home. So even if that father had no idea that his daughter was being circumcised, if he was the one who took her to that country, he is responsible for what happened to her since she was in his care, regardless of whether it was done with or without his knowledge. If he wasn't the one, then whoever took her back is responsible and should be prosecuted. This actually reminds me of a court case I was following a few years back. A Somali woman was on trial for the harmful neglect of her 7 year-old child- who sustained a burn to his cheek and leg. His school had reported the injuries and when questioned, he said his 'aunt' had burned him with a fork because he had said a 'naughty' word to her. The mother denied this and said it was his little sister who had accidently burned him. Well, the police investigated and found evidence (expert witnesses and 3 medical reports) that it was an adult, rather than a child who burned him (something to do with the angle of the injuries and how many times and for how long the fork was pressed against his skin). Anyway, the woman refused to say who had burned the child, so she was prosecuted and convicted because the child sustained the injuries while he was in her care. She received a custodial sentence and the rest of her children we taken away and placed in foster care. The number of moronic, reckless, irresponsible and cruel parents out there is quite simply astonishing. I completely agree with whoever said 'if you can't protect your children, others will'. Absolutely.

^^ LoL The wierdest ring tone I heard belonged to a guy who was hired to paint my aunt's house a couple of summers ago. It was of an old man singing: "Taleefankaa dhacaaya...taleefankaa dhacaaya...ka jawaab taleefanka...wuu dhacayaa...wuu dhacayaa..wuu dhacayaa"

Originally posted by ThePoint: But then what happens if the girl is a willing participant in the whole thing - should he still be locked up? Should it still be the Swedish gov'ts preogative to interfere? I don't know. I don't think the question of what to do after FGM has been done is so black and white as the issue itself. Again with the 'interference', how can convicting someone of a crime they did be interference on the part of the govt? The legislation already exists, it's illegal to carry out FGM on underage girls, why shouldn't he be prosecuted? It's not like spilt milk. If they did it to this daughter they will do it to the next one. As for the girl being a willing participant, we all know the huge amount of influence parents have over their children. Kids believe what the parents tell them to believe. But just because a child can be convinced that what's happening to them is a good thing, however horrible it might feel, does that make it right or acceptable? Does it give the parents the right to physically harm their children? If a child doesn't mind getting their hands burned when they do something naughty, should the parents burn him/her? You guys speak like having your genitals slashed up and sewn up together again is a benign, loving gesture on the parents part. What total bullshidh. Pleading 'ignorance' is a weak drum to beat. People can and should be able to tell right from wrong. Sheh, wlc back. :cool:

^ Did you see the Saudi line-up? My sister was convinced half of them were Somalis. C'mon England, beat those Swedes!

Bilal, you won't know anything till you ask her and her family. All the best. Originally posted by Didi Kong: ^Maybe you can spit out some qaldaan chat-up lines for him. I will leave that to you.

Whatever happened to the 'ideal' civil liberties Scandinavian nations used to espouse. Two men can marry, but it is government's no business. Two married couple can swing as many as they want, yet not government's business. A little girl ayaa la guday, but this time dowlad shaqadeyda waaye inay soo faragishato. Gudniin dhaqan laga tagay waaye, that no sane individual can condone, laakiin if the dowlada Iswiidhan keeps a blind eye on homesexuality, prostitution and other vile vices -- noo, they welcome and condone them by recognizing their marriages and acts for buying sex -- laakiinse it makes her business what should legally be a family's business, not government's. MMA, the vices you mention are often between two consenting adults, unlike the mutilation of a child by her own family. The victims of FGM are young girls and the family is always the culprit, so why in the world should it remain their business? Cultural relativity has been used to turn a blind eye to FGM for far too long. There is a similar Law in the UK, however it hardly gets used, mainly due to lack of reporting. I'm glad Sweden is taking it so seriously. The important thing is to protect children and parents who insist on inflicting FGM on their daughters need to be put behind bars for a very long time. They really don't deserve their kids.

^ Good for you. Now, how can we help?

^ You know where the door is. Bye bye. :rolleyes: Amelia, LoL..yeah. Wonder where Foxy is...Been ages since I last saw her posting.

Ku meel gaadh, huh? Tolow goormaad gaadheysaa that Porche 911? Never? I thought so. As for my fit, I don't know about that. However cute the Micra is, it is a little too common for my taste. If I had to choose I would go for a lotus elise. Go Mr Prada!

^^ Works out well for you then, 'coz you can only afford a Nissan Micra.

May he rest in peace.

^^ LoL @ 'truth'. Aha...

Originally posted by FirstLady: I was told getting married at the age of 25years and older is a bad thing. It is actually more serious than that. Having to get married after 25 is the single most horrible fate that could ever befall a young girl. *Shivers*

Liquid, your Somali is something else. Gotta love it.

I think the Aussies did really well. They've got my respect! Those over-indulged South Americans got lucky..both times. Let us hope they pummel the Croats!

I read that report recently...quite interesting. The older the father, the more chance the child will be born with genetic defects. I suppose it makes sense as nature places time limits on everything.

^ No chance. England delivered. :cool: Had the easiest journey home ever...the trains & platforms were practically empty.

^ I don't know about deserving, but they certainly were desperate for a goal. Guess they didn't want to draw. Let's hope Tahliil's Ecuador beats them. England expects. :cool:

That's awful...am really sorry to hear of it. Ilaahay ha u fududeeyo the victim and his family. Of course you are completely right, Lost-One. Violence against Somalis by far outstrips violence committed by Somalis, but the media is never interested in reporting the other side. That would be too fair. I suppose highlighting cases where we are the victims would interfere with the image of violent, lawless terrorists they have been busy peddling on our behalf. Keep us informed please.

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar: Taloow if I'd written in gibberish ebonics, a la yo-yo, waz up my nigga aan qori lahaa, maxaa ii maleyn lahaydeen inaan jiro? A late bloomer teen? LoL...speaking well is unfashionable at the moment, ma ogid? You are so out of the loop! By the way..do you wear the koofi barawaani and hoosgunti sabariindi ah for nikaaxyada only?

Originally posted by Endeavour: Who said it was a joke? Have you ever heard of any female at the same age as Richard gere referred to as attractive? Wait...Richard Gere is attractive? Ha ha ha. Who's criteria are we using? Because I'm afraid you'll be saying Harrison Ford or Sly Stallone are hot next. Attractive females around Gere's age? I can think of several at the top of my head (Jane Seymour, Susan Sarandon and Rene Russo to name but a few), depending on what criteria we are using. Finally, you really shouldn't buy into stereotypes. How good someone looks into their later years has little to do with gender, and more to do with good genes, wealth, health and lifestyle choices. :cool:

^ You shouldn't have much trouble if you marry a mani/pedicurist. Your request is more hygienic than unorthodox. :cool:

I think a two-year contract is great (unless u plan to go for a mortgage within those two years). It's just long enough to really get into the role, gain excellent experience and see some difference in what you do, but not long enough to get bored and/or disillusioned. There are no 'jobs for life' anymore. Permanent jobs are only good if you don't like change or if you have major responsibilities, otherwise they are a waste of time, talent and better opportunities. If there is little prospect for promotion and/or continuous training and development...you are in the wrong job, mate. It's not what you can do for the company, it's what the company can do for you. If they can't help you progress, there are better options out there. I wouldn't think twice about it, anigu.