This Barbarian Primitive Act Must Stop Now!!

[Naden]

Originally posted by Jimcaale:

I’m not here to defend or convict him of alleged crime. The court needs to answer all those questions you posed, not someone whom you perceive as pro circumcision.

The questions are not for you and I have no perceptions about what you’re pro or against. No reason for me to think you have any more info than what is in the original post. They’re hypothetical and in relation to the father’s claims of ignorance that were discussed in the thread. I understand that you’re for giving the guy the benefit of doubt and I agree he is entitled to that and more, even on an online discussion forum.

 

The Swedish or Western laws are not designed to protect innocent girls in Africa or Somalia facing the abuse of female genital mutilation……

If I understand the article correctly, the child is Swedish or a resident. If found guilty, it would be punishment for a crime he committed. It might even be a lesson for other parents who are aware of the law, living in Sweden, and are thinking about doing the same. My 'sensitivity' is all for a harsh punishment but my 'rationale' will take any sort of punishment as a deterrant for others.

 

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and held to it by Allah. Provide education and alternatives to those likely to benefit from such practice and you’re more likely to cut the number of girls getting circumcised each year in half.

Agreed.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Jimcaale:

The Somali communities need awareness and education about the horrors of FMG.

What for?

 

 

The persistance of FMG has little to do with ignorance of it's pernicious effect on women. Afterall, those most familiar with female clitoridectomy and infibulation -- Somali Women -- are among it's staunchest perpetrators. You can educate somalis till come hell or high water but FGMed somali women with vivid memories of the whole harrowing ordeal brashly intent on putting their own daughters through the same horrific experience kinda takes the wind out of educate somalis about FGM sail, doesn't it?

 

FGM like all other inveterate and deleterious social mores will evanesce only once fair balance is reached between societal and individual welfare. Which will come with time. Somalis place little value on the individual and greater importance on societal welfare. Thereby skewing the balance between individual liberties and societal in favour of the latter. This is the source for why FGM is still widely practiced among Somalis, not lack of knowledge.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Valenteenah:

quote: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.

 

 

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).

[Resistance]

^^loool, and since when did a child consent to anything ( in particular a Somali a consenting 10 year-old ku lahaa, u should join that new Dutch poedo party that argue children can consent to sex ( don't take tat as a offence ).

 

The fight against FGM should led from the Masjid and i want to see it as number 1 item on muxaadirooyinka. Don't just let the gaal fight against wat is wholly unislamic.

[-Lily-]

It's plain wrong and we all know it deep down, regardless of where we are from.

[ElPunto]

^I detest arguments like 'if you don't like it, move' - that is the talk of bigots. Otherwise you made some very valid points.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Hizb_UK:

^^loool, and since when did a child consent to anything ( in particular a Somali a consenting 10 year-old ku lahaa, u should join that new Dutch poedo party that argue children can consent to sex ( don't take tat as a offence ).

 

The fight against FGM should led from the Masjid and i want to see it as number 1 item on muxaadirooyinka. Don't just let the gaal fight against wat is wholly unislamic.

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.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Originally posted by WaTerLily:

I don't know all the fact but if he took his daughter on purpose to have her circumsticed, then he deserves what he gets. That should teach a lesson to all Somali parents, if you are not willing to protect your kids others will.

Are you happy now? I am sad, for that father's plight and the kuffars dictating on the fate of his daughter!

 

You know what?..... As of now, we should all circumcize our daughters, even our grown ups, and show the kuffars how loyal we are to our values and historic cultures! That is right, and let's see if they can stop us or not!

 

:mad:

[Alle-ubaahne]

Originally posted by Warsan:

I remember having a very long and very intense argument with someone about this very subject and I was supporting that children under 15 be checked by female doctors before they go to countries where FGM is practiced. People have full body exams for all sorts of things and I don't see the problem with that. FGM is haram, its disgusting, sickening, painful, and alot of times fatal. Anyone who supports it is either completely spineless & ignorant or a sadistic, controlling, abusive monster.

 

Children need to be protected. If innocent and helpless children are being violated and mutilaited to such a horrendous extent by the neighbourhood outcasts (couldn't they at least get trained professionals to it with anestitic if they insist on it? and don't even for one second try to compare it to male circumcision) then someone should step up to the plate to protect them.

 

It's a muslim's duty to obey the laws of the country they reside in - if you don't like it, move. But don't come and enjoy it's opportunites but then cry when you're punished for thinking you can get away with breaking the law.

You are outside of our culture and people when you talk like that. And please don't say you are a Somali when you have nothing to do with us, in believe and in norms!

 

She ruined my half-gone happy day! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Valenteenah.]

^^ 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.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Valenteenah:

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?

 

It is not mind-boggling nor is it as simplistic as you have it. What is harm? - harm is defined differently in different societies according to their values. Regular circumcision harms the male child - it is unnecessary in the strictest sense. So does ear piercing for girls. They are hardly in the same category as FGM but the point stands nevertheless. Bottomline - what constitutes harming of the child depends and is never black and white. That was my point from the very beginning.

[Valenteenah.]

^^ 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.

[ElPunto]

^Perhaps I am. But I hardly think it is the be all and end all of evil to a child. Each of know tens if not hundreds of women who have this gruesome procedure done but have managed to get on with their lives and move forward. Personally I think something along the lines of the female abortion and infanticide done in India, for example, is much more evil. But then gradations of evil are more semantic than anything else. There is no fundamental disagreement.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Originally posted by Valenteenah:

^^ 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 Getter, I am happy your views are not gaining any relevency in our people, even in the coming 50 years. So, how is your assimilation process to the west doing so far?

[Faheema.]

^^^ Qofkan ma ka dhabaa horta. :confused:

 

As for FGM, there is no justification... La garay barigii hore when people were not well informed. Lakiin, what possible excuse is there now? Can you honestly say we [somalis] are unaware of the Pain, Suffering and the long term Complications woman have gone through as a result of FGM? These feeble arguments of Waa wax dhaqan u leenahay is getting tedious…..Wax la debate’gareeyo iyo wax kalaa kala jira. :rolleyes: