57 1 min 9 yrs

I read with interest that  campaigners have announced a new study into the numbers of women in England and Wales who have undergone female genital mutilation.

The aim is to update a 2007 analysis which suggested more than 66,000 women had undergone a form of ritual cutting, with some 24,000 girls at risk.  The practice is illegal but persists in ..ahem…some communities.  Campaigner Efua Dorkenoo, of Equality Now, said better data would help the issue be taken more seriously.

FMG has no place in the UK. Those who practise it should be imprisoned. The liklihood is that this number will have zoomed upwards since 2007 as “some communities” grow larger and larger, indifferent to our British ways, intent to impose their savagery on young girl.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

57 thoughts on “FMG IN THE UK…

  1. This is horrible.

    Of course “ritual cutting” could be anything from very little to permanent serious mutilation.

    I don’t approve of cutting children for anything other than medical reasons. That includes circumcision and ear piercing.

    I have my ears pierced but it wasn’t until my late 20s because it was so hard to get nice earrings for non pierced ears. It was my decision as an adult. Part of me still thinks that it was ludicrous for me to have someone stick holes in me so that I can hang things from them.

    (One of my friends at school went to get her ears pierced. She got cold feet just before and the guy who was about to do it gave her a wicked grin and said “thats such a shame as there is nothing I like more than sticking holes in Protestants’ ears” 😀 So she went ahead 🙂 )

    First hand accounts of genital mutilation are heart breaking – including those of members of the family who try and fight the system on behalf of the girl concerned.

  2. I agree Aileen. The mutilation of any Childs genitals, male or female usually for religious is disgusting and should be stopped.

  3. //66,000 women had undergone a form of ritual cutting//

    In 2013? – Barbaric. I wonder how many of them were mutilated in the UK, or arrived after it was done elsewhere.

  4. The Jews practice circumcision as an essential part of their covenant with God.
    Apparently the Designer gave no explanation as to why circumcision, but it doesn’t seem to have had adverse effects on their ability to have children
    (God bless all parents and newborn babies born today…)

    and retain their position as “The World’s Most Annoying and Infuriating People”.

    Female mutilation is an entirely different thing, springing as it does from a belief in the inferiority of women. Some Islamic/cultural attitudes to women are frankly barbaric and I take my hat off to every Islamic and Western female organisation seeking to change attitudes.
    I hope that our government will come out more clearly in opposition to this practice and reaffirm our own traditional British values as being the basis for the law of the land.
    Incidentally I find the current fad for female tattoos and body piercings equally repellent. The only difference being that choice was involved.

  5. Babies born into a Jewish family lack choice too. I agree there are certain differences, but there is also a core issue that both are forced upon the subject.

  6. daytripper,
    As I understand it Catholic and Protestant children get confirmed out of a sense of parental/community expectation.
    It ain’t something that most of them were begging for from infancy.
    In fact I think I am one of a few people who refused to be confirmed into the CofE on the grounds that when I was old enough I knew I would be breaking all of those promises to God. 🙂
    This is life daytripper. Children usually go along with their parents’ expectations.
    I was circumcised at 8 years old for medical reasons. Male circumcision doesn’t kill you.The Jews are proof.

  7. Child mutilation for religious / tribal reasons is obscene and has no part in a civilised society.

  8. daytripper
    Babies born into a Jewish family lack choice too. I agree there are certain differences, but there is also a core issue that both are forced upon the subject.

    I couldn’t agree more. If you support one and not the other, you’re just a dishonest hypocrite. The stress for male children is just as great as it is for females during this disgusting act. And the pain afterwards still just as distressing.

  9. “Child mutilation for religious / tribal reasons is obscene and has no part in a civilised society.”

    That is such a deliberately loaded statement!

    Male circumcision has not been proved to impair reproduction or sexual enjoyment. Female genital mutilation is done deliberately so that Muslim women will not enjoy sexual intercourse. That is barbaric

    Shooting soldiers going to collect a pizza/hacking a man to death on a street in broad daylight (even if they haven’t been convicted) could also be said to be obscene and has no place in a civilised society.
    True or not true?

  10. Male circumcision has not been proved to impair reproduction or sexual enjoyment. Female genital mutilation is done deliberately so that Muslim women will not enjoy sexual intercourse. That is barbaric

    Except that we’re not talking about reproduction or sexual enjoyment we’re talking about pain and discomfort caused to infants purely for tribal / religious reasons.

    Shooting soldiers going to collect a pizza/hacking a man to death on a street in broad daylight (even if they haven’t been convicted) could also be said to be obscene and has no place in a civilised society.
    True or not true?

    (There’s me and my Irish obsession again!!)

    Absolutely true! What would make you think it was untrue?

    If you support one and not the other, you’re just a dishonest hypocrite

    Absolutely correct Dave.

  11. “we’re talking about pain and discomfort caused to infants purely for tribal / religious reasons.”

    So elucidate. Tell us how many (Jewish*) parents have gone on from inflicting “pain and discomfort” (gasp) on their children to abusing, torturing, neglecting them?
    Let’s open it up a bit more shall we?
    (But you two “delicate and squeamish flowers” please feel free to look away at any time. I’d hate to be the cause of any fainting or fits of the vapours…)

    Now let’s take a nice Jewish boy like Georges -Andre Kohn.

    Never heard of him you say?
    Well that’s because he’s dead.

    You can read about him here and see photos of him and his family.
    ,http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/jugendwebsite/r_pdf/georges_eng.pdf
    You might note the signs of pain and trauma on his face from the effects of circumcision, or you might note that the fate that awaited him was carried out by people perhaps like you who were very critical of these abuses on little children…

    They were called Nazis.
    They believed in the superiority of the Germanic race.

    “In many concentration camps, German doctors abused prisoners in medical experimentation. In this they exceeded all standards of medical practice and ethics. The death of the human »guinea pig« was anticipated as a necessary outcome of these tests.

    The first commandment of doctors to do everything in their power to improve the condition of the patient was totally ignored.
    In the world view of the Nazis, the Jews and many others were considered »inferior« human beings. This provided the doctors with a justification for performing cruel experiments without anesthesia, antiseptic disinfection and similar procedures. In most cases these doctors proceeded with their experiments on the basis of absurd hypotheses.
    Their findings were in the main totally useless and irrelevant for science. But they were performed on the pretext that they were in the service of »public health.«
    The victims of this medical experimentation were mainly Jews, Sinti and Roma and Soviet POWs. More than 350 doctors were implicated in these experiments. After the war, only a small number of them were tried and convicted before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal11 or in courts in the Federal Republic of Germany.”

    This same superiority and contempt for (esp Jews) manifested in outraged indignation by the likes of Dr Josef Mengele

    http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/59/5961.jpg

    So let me ask you two guys. Which group has been most traumatised in your civilised society?

    The ones who practiced circumcision or the ones who didn’t? The victims of a “superior ” race, or the civilised enlightened ones who saw it as their duty to rid the world of Jews and other submenschen?

    * Jews being the ones I know most about.

  12. The ones who practiced circumcision or the ones who didn’t? The victims of a “superior ” race, or the civilised enlightened ones who saw it as their duty to rid the world of Jews and other submenschen?

    And there it is. The emotional lever used to pardon anything and everything negative connected to Israel / Zionism / Judaism gets pulled again.

    The Nazis attempt at genocide gives the Jews the right to inflict painful religious / tribal mutilation on infants?

    You couldn’t make it up!

  13. I dont remember any cutting/mutilation associated with my confirmation (apart from cake, sandwiches and the like). Maybe the trauma was so great that I blocked it out.

  14. “The Nazis attempt at genocide gives the Jews the right to inflict painful religious / tribal mutilation on infants?
    You couldn’t make it up!”

    In the great scheme of things where does ” ..gives the Jews the right to inflict painful religious / tribal mutilation on infants?” come into it?

    Why would the Jews need an excuse like the Nazis to carry out circumcision. I simply illustrated for those delicate flowers amongst us that an ancient people that has practiced male circumcision from its inception never produced anything like what a highly civilised non circumcised nation like Germany proved capable of.
    The REAL atrocities of Nazism seem to pale into significance besides those of Israeli bombs going astray and Jews circumcising their baby boys.
    Yes Paul, you will acknowledge Nazi crimes, but pressure has to be applied to get you to do so.
    Pressure not required when it comes to noticing the horrors of Israeli atrocities.
    It’s all a question of proportion, not distortion.

  15. What other reason would you bring up attempted genocide on a thread about religious / tribal infant mutilation?

    The REAL atrocities of Nazism seem to pale into significance besides those of Israeli bombs going astray and Jews circumcising their baby boys.
    Yes Paul, you will acknowledge Nazi crimes, but pressure has to be applied to get you to do so.

    With all due respect Agi, that’s absolute bollocks.

  16. It’s not bollocks Paul.
    You have this out of proportion.
    You are saying that (male) circumcision has no place in a civilised society.

    I have argued that there is no evidence of resulting deep seated trauma.
    There are no counselling services for emotionally disturbed jewish males because of circumcision.
    There is no evidence that this barbaric practice has resulted in a more bloodthirsty or cruel Jewish people.

    I have also shown that in societies where there is no medical/religious tradition of circumcision,
    they have still managed to produce the most evil and barbarous regime in modern times (Nazism)
    State Communism
    Pol Pot’s regime
    African Butchery clubs
    Beheadings, FMG practitioners, maimings, stonings and amputations.
    They have their fair share of sadists, paedophiles, rapists, murderers and exploiters of children and women too.

    I posted some time ago about the very few Jewish people in UK prisons compared to other groups. Even Allan acknowledges that the jews help each other and that they value learning and achievement. They don’t have an alcohol problem and they tend to be very family orientated.

    That’s what I mean by a sense of proportion, and why I asked which societies in practice are actually worse for practicing or not practicing male circumcision.
    At the very very least, you would have to acknowledge that they are no different.

  17. Mutilating/cutting children for anything other than medical reasons is unjustified IMO.

    Even if every Jewish person was lovely and everyone else was evil would still not justify it unless the argument is that the cutting or not is what actually makes that difference,

  18. ” Mutilating/cutting children for anything other than medical reasons is unjustified IMO.”

    So is raping babies and little kids, or torturing them or not feeding them!
    Get real people!

    Stop going on about something that has been practiced by the Jews for thousands of years with no apparent ill effects-save that some of you “don’t happen to like it.”
    Oh my….!!

  19. I will go on as much as I choose about unnecessary pain to children and anyone who doesn’t happen to like it can foxtrot Oscar!

  20. Well of course you can Aileen. I never said I didn’t like it. I just don’t agree with that view.

    And “anyone who doesn’t happen to like it”
    such as er, Agit8ed for example,

    will continue to argue for a sense of proportion.
    Along with my wife I worked with sexually abused children in care and as far as I’m concerned,
    there’s a lot more evil and barbarous stuff done towards children in our “circumcision-less, Christian/post Christian” society than that.

  21. It’s not bollocks Paul

    Yes it is when you’re saying this:

    “Yes Paul, you will acknowledge Nazi crimes, but pressure has to be applied to get you to do so”

    I have also shown that in societies where there is no medical/religious tradition of circumcision,
    they have still managed to produce the most evil and barbarous regime in modern times (Nazism)
    State Communism
    Pol Pot’s regime
    African Butchery clubs
    Beheadings, FMG practitioners, maimings, stonings and amputations.
    They have their fair share of sadists, paedophiles, rapists, murderers and exploiters of children and women too.

    What kind of insane vodoo logic is that?

    Let me put this straight yet again

    Infliction of pain on infants for tribal / religious reasons is barbaric and has no place in civilised society.

    Got that? I’m speaking about deliberate unnecessary infliction of pain on infant children purely as a tribal / religious ceremony I’m not arguing that is has further psychologigical effects etc What Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ghengis Khan or whatever other evil bastard you want to bring up has got to do with the particular act of abuse that we’re discussing on this has got to do with that is beyond me.

    Agi, this thread is about FGM, which you (correctly) condemn but condemning FGM while actively supporting MGM because it suits your religious beliefs is blatant hypocriscy.

  22. Hmm

    Stop going on about …..

    I never said I didn’t like it. I just don’t agree with that view.

  23. FGS

    Telling someone to “stop going on ..” about something is a hell of a lot different than “I just don’t agree with that view”

    and blows the mind coming from someone who goes on and on about a few pet things on thread after thread regardless of their relevance to the thread topic or anyone else’s comments on the thread.

    Mutilation/cutting of children for religious purposes is exactly what this thread is about and the notion that someone thinks it is appropriate to tell someone to “stop going on” about it should be a surprise but is actually ruddy typical.

  24. “Agi, this thread is about FGM, which you (correctly) condemn but condemning FGM while actively supporting MGM because it suits your religious beliefs is blatant hypocriscy.”

    So if it’s about FGM, which we all agree to be wrong (because as I said) the reasoning behind it is that a) women are inferior and fmg stops them getting any pleasure out of sexual intercourse (including cutting away all or part of the clitoris). Now that is blatantly evil.
    Male circumcision does not do that. You brought up “mgm” and in doing so you are demanding that an integral part of Judaism be removed without any evidence that harm is done.
    Now there are lots of evil stuff done in religions.
    The Catholics and Protestants try to drown their babies with water, the Muslims sometimes circumcise their boys as well as their girls.
    Hindus and similar thing with Sikhs

    “When a baby is born into a Hindu family it is often welcomed with a ceremony in which some honey is put in the child’s mouth and the name of God is whispered in the child’s ear.
    Ten to twelve days after the birth, the priest announces the baby’s name and prayers are said. Ear-piercing and first haircut ceremonies are also considered highly significant.”

    What if the kid has a honey allergy or doesn’t want an ear piercing?

    Where does it all stop Paul?
    As I said, get a sense of proportion.

  25. “Telling someone to “stop going on ..” about something is a hell of a lot different than “I just don’t agree with that view”

    Okay,
    I don’t agree with that view.
    Wanna know why?

  26. ‘Wanna know why’

    Did you not already say? But sure for the slow learner s among us go on then, lets hear it! 😉

  27. If a child is allergic to honey don’t give it honey. Infant ear – piercing is also an act of physical abuse on an infant.

    Where does it all stop Paul?
    As I said, get a sense of proportion

    Nazism
    State Communism
    Pol Pot’s regime
    African Butchery clubs
    Beheadings, FMG practitioners, maimings, stonings and amputations.

    Yeah, a sense of proportion.

  28. ” Infant ear – piercing is also an act of physical abuse on an infant.”

    If that were really true, you’d think the abused ear pierced/circumcised/victims of attempted drowning and circumcised children would campaign against those practices when they grew up into adults..

    Muslim women are increasingly trying to change things
    Jewish men are not.
    Case closed.

  29. Case closed

    Bollocks it is.

    Jewish men are not

    Another misconception:

    http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

    Those Jewish men that you speak of don’t campaign to have it stopped because it’s a fait accompli and, like you, they probably agree with it retrospectively because it’s a tribal iniatiation rite.

    As I said before, it would be interesting to see how many Jewish teenagers would opt for circumcision if the ceremony was carried out at thirteen.

  30. ” As I said before, it would be interesting to see how many Jewish teenagers would opt for circumcision if the ceremony was carried out at thirteen.”

    So go online and find some websites that maybe back up your claim and stop bothering me about it.

    Case closed.
    Next!

  31. Agit.

    Dave,
    You are speaking from experience, or your Jewish friends have told you this?

    Erm, as usual Agit, I’m not sure what this would have to do with the points raised. Just to humor you however, I’m not speaking from personal experience, but the son of the father and son team of the Jewish owned company I used to work for got hit circumcision reversed to increase his sexual feeling.
    A friend of mine who isn’t Jewish but is circumcised, (medical reasons when he was in his twenties) also said it reduced his sexual pleasure

    Paul

    With all due respect Agi, that’s absolute bollocks.

    You have to resort to absolute bollocks when you don’t have a sensible argument. Agits gone straight for a godwins.

  32. Agit.

    I already said, circumcision reduces sexual feeling for most men. So in that respect it’s not all that different to FGM. It really shows your hypocrisy when you defend MGM but cry foul about FGM. (Or is it perhaps your religious prejudices?)

  33. Paul,
    I have emailed that site Jews Against Circumcision. I confess to not having noticed your inclusion of it earlier. I will let you know when I get a reply.
    In the meantime I am going to search the net for more on the subject for or against.
    My office will therefore be closed for about an hour.

    Dave,
    Proportionately speaking, do you suppose circumcision allows enough sexual pleasure that jewish men want to do it again
    and again
    and again??

  34. Agit.

    Dave,
    Proportionately speaking, do you suppose circumcision allows enough sexual pleasure that jewish men want to do it again
    and again
    and again??

    Again I’m not sure what you mean here Agit. But to re-iterate my points, in answer to your questions and postings above;

    There is reduced sensation after circumcision.
    There are many Jews against this practice.
    It’s as bad as FGM however you try to dress-it-up.
    It has nothing to do with Nazism, Communism, Pol Pot’s etc.

    It’s about the mutilation of a child and if that practice should be tolerated for whatever reason.

  35. Right,
    Myself Paul Dave and Aileen all agreed that fgm was wrong, but when it got onto mgm (circumcision) I said there was no proof of harm or reduction of sexual enjoyment or the ability to reproduce.
    I was told I was being hypocritical and that babies should not be mutilated in any way without their assent.
    ?
    However I have done a bit of looking around the web, and perhaps we could look at the pleasure pain aspect of circumcision first.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation
    http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130409132348AAKN9xHhttp://thehealthybear.com/foreskin-restoration-to-reverse-circumcision/

    Now there are pictures of hairy willies in there so please be careful.

    Basically though it would seem that it is hard 😉 to establish whether penile sensitivity is reduced or not, that you can have a new foreskin made, but the downside is that it costs a lot of money and in some cases you might not be allowed an erection for three months or so.

    There are Jews who want to see circumcision stopped, but they are a pretty small minority and their following is mainly amongst the liberal or “I don’t believe in God or religion anyway” group.

    There are loads of Islamic sites supporting male circumcision.
    Here’s a quite interesting one..
    http://convertingtoislam.com/circum.html

    But in the main the support for male circumcision or even ear piercing or the attempted drowning of children by priests, is to be found amongst religious adherents of various faiths.
    But as most here believe in multiculturalism and freedom of expression and religion, that shouldn’t be a problem.

    There are very few sites for people actively against male circumcision, and indeed the one Paul mentioned when I emailed them the email came back as wrong address.

    So it seems to me that when I argued that traditional “non circumcision” societies have been capable and are capable of all kinds of deliberate atrocities against men, women and children that is true. The barbarism involved is at least equal perhaps more, to the societies which practice male circumcision. Morally that counts for something if we are going to accuse (esp) Jews of inflicting a barbarous ritual upon their children.

    I feel fully justified in contrasting the Nazi philososphy and practice with those barbaric Jewish people who practised circumcision and lost whole families including thousands of little childrenin the Holocaust.
    I still feel that as long as there are all kinds of evil being done against children (we were talking about porn yesterday) the matter of male circumcision should come don very low in our list of barbarous practices needing to be addressed.

  36. Bloody stupid idea.

    The first idiot to suggest taking scissors to an infant’s knob should have been thrashed without mercy.

  37. Agi, that’s a long winded piece of cobblers.

    What we are speaking about here is the deliberate infliction of pain on an infant as a religious / tribal rite of passage so forget all that smoke and mirrors stuff about non circumcised monsters and atrocities, the Holocaust and the lowering of sexual pleasure the matter at hand is causing unnecessary pain to an infant as a rite of tribal / religious passage. That is the issue at stake all those other red herrings are redundant.

    Causing pain to an infant in a rite of passage ceremony is wrong – be that FMG, MMG or tribal scarring.

    I still feel that as long as there are all kinds of evil being done against children (we were talking about porn yesterday) the matter of male circumcision should come don very low in our list of barbarous practices needing to be addressed.

    Yet strangley you found FMG high enough on the list for you to comment on it.

  38. ” Yet strangley you found FMG high enough on the list for you to comment on it.”

    I think that’s because it’s the subject of the thread Paul.

    Ya lost.

  39. Strange that you find FMG high enough on the list for you to comment on it yet think that male circumcision should come down very low in our list of barbarous practices needing to be addressed.

    Blatant hypocriscy.

    Ya lost

    What on earth are you talking about?

  40. But in the main the support for male circumcision or even ear piercing or the attempted drowning of children by priests, is to be found amongst religious adherents of various faiths.

    I know of no-one who attempts to drown children and if this is about baptism it is offensive to suggest that it is on a par with cutting/mutilating children.

    But as most here believe in multiculturalism and freedom of expression and religion, that shouldn’t be a problem.

    FGS

    yeah lets just pretend that people advocating religious freedom are advocating opt out of law because of religion.

    and lets just ignore the fact that if we considered you should be able to do anything you like because of religion. we would be unlikely to be saying that mutilating/cutting children for religious purposes is wrong.

  41. The thing about drowning children was n’t meant to be taken seriously Aileen. It was meant as a bit of humour.
    It suddenly occurred to me in my attempt to be religiously even handed so I included it.
    You need to realise that I do not set out to upset or annoy you. I just seem to have a knack for it in your case. It isn’t intentional usually.
    Also whatever anyone thinks of my opinions I do try to look at things in the round, and when I look stuff up as here, it’s because I do take seriously the subject at hand. I could just chuck out a comment and move on to the next item, but that is not why I blog.

  42. Agi

    You have certainly set out to annoy me – the “Aunty Aileen”, “Dorothy” stuff, when you knew that daft names were annoying me. The Dorothy stuff because after trying to ignore all the references to Colm being gay because I did not want to engage with you, I could see that they were going to continue. Then I get the Dorothy crap and nonsense about not having any evidence etc. Then you brought my family circumstances into a rant telling me of your contempt for me. (The former mattering – the latter not).

    You have more than once demanded that another poster not respond to you because he insulted you but it appears to be “do as I say not as I do”. Anyone who isn’t banned is entitled to comment on anyone else’s comment. You can ask (but not demand) that they don’t. There is also a difference between commenting on another persons comment and addressing them directly. The latter being decidedly creepy if it is clear the person does not want to engage you – it is on the stalking continuum.

    You might not take the subject of hurting children in the name of religion seriously but it appears some others do.

    BTW David, Phantom, Pete, Mike and Daphne blog here. We merely comment.

    I am prepared to draw a line under this but my name is Aileen. I will take abbreviations for the sake of ease of typing but that’s it.

  43. Agit.

    I had a feeling this thread would follow the usual route and it didn’t disappoint.

    The discussion was initially about FGM which you agreed was barbaric and wrong. However, when it came to MGM you seemed to have a very different and hypocritical point of view.
    However you try to obfuscate the original point using straw men augments and misdirection, the point still remains the same. Posting links to other web sites to back-up your opinion, (and lets remember here Aberdeen Allan can link to plenty of websites to back-up his views) are irrelevant to the discussion.

    The point under discussion is the unnecessary mutilation of a child for whatever reason (religious or otherwise) is wrong. Not selective based on what religious practices you agree with.

  44. You’ve said that before Dave.
    I don’t think they’re straw man arguments. I tried to follow up on Paul’s points and spent some time doing it.

    But I remain of the view that male circumcision is not mutilation, especially as one of my links (the CNN one) says that physicians are cautiously saying the benefits outweigh the risks, and as most health services provide for medical circumcision if (non religious) parents request it, can it be truly described as “mutilation”?

    But anyway I have always said that I do not regard all religions as of equal value anyway, so this is the proof.

  45. But I remain of the view that male circumcision is not mutilation

    Yep, at it’s Allan’s view that the Jews are plotting to take over the world.

  46. *And it’s Allan’s view that the Jews are plotting to take over the world

Comments are closed.