Lucy Mashua in an interesting Interview with the Frontpage Magazine:

My experience with Islam on FGM is very sad. As you correctly point out, a majority of people who practice FGM on women are of the Islamic faith and in the Muslim countries that I have visited their women and children have encountered the worst form of it, and many reconstructive surgeons can testify to this. It is a form of control and manipulation in the name of religion.

The good news is that there many Muslims who are rising to end any form of torture against women.

.

“As an innocent child I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered…I was taken to a very dark room and undressed.  I was blindfolded and stripped naked.”

“I was then carried by four strong women to the site for the operation.  I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg.  Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper from moving”

“….The pain was terrible and unbearable…I was badly cut and lost blood.  All those who took part in the operation were half drunk….After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk….”

“Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright.  The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain…Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain.”

“I was not given any anesthetic…nor any antibiotics to fight against infection.  Afterwards I hemorrhaged and became anemic.  This was attributed to witchcraft.”

According to Amnesty International, 135 million girls and women have undergone genital mutilation similar to what Hannah Koroma of Sierra Leone just described and another 6,000 young girls are estimated to endure the procedure every day.

The problem is most serious in Sub-Saharan Africa where 90% of the girls in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan are estimated to have been mutilated.  There are fifteen more countries in Africa where 50% or more of their girls have been mutilated.

There are four types of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).  Sunna circumcision involves the removal of the tip of the clitoris and/or clitoral hood.  Clitoridectomy is the removal of the entire clitoris; sometimes the adjacent labia are also removed; this operation is known as excision.

The most gruesome type of FGM is called infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision, in which a clitoridectomy and excision are performed and the outer labia are cut “to create raw surfaces which are then stitched together to form a cover over the vagina.”  A small opening is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass.

An estimated 85% of mutilations performed in Africa are clitoridectomies or excisions; the remaining 15% are infibulations.  According to Amnesty International, FGM usually takes place between the ages of four and eight.  The procedure is typically carried out by an older woman – not medically trained – with scissors, razor blades, or knives.

The equipment is rarely sterilized and anesthesia is not commonly used.  The girl is simply held, by one or more older women, with her legs open.  Importantly, these operations are often done on a group of girls; the same instrument is often used on the entire group.

According to Amnesty International, the immediate effects of FGM include hemorrhage, shock, and pain.  These symptoms can and have led to death.  Because the instrument is often used on several girls and rarely sterilized, HIV can and has been transmitted through FGM.

More commonly, clitoridectomy can cause intermittent bleeding, chronic infections, abscesses, and small benign tumors.  Excision commonly causes discomfort and extreme pain.

According to Amnesty International, infibulation can cause “chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids (raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars) and dermoid cysts.”

All types of genital mutilation can adversely affect sexual fulfillment and damage sometimes caused by FGM increases the risk of HIV transmission during sex.

Infibulation also requires further operations after the girl is wed.  In order to have sex, the opening left after mutilation must be gradually dilated; this process is very painful.  Worse yet, in many cases cutting is necessary, in which case women may be damaged further by “unskillful cutting.”

Childbirth poses further risks as infibulated women have cesarean sections at higher rates.  For a vaginal birth the woman may have to be cut again or the baby may tear open the vaginal covering.  Often the woman is “reinfibulated to make them ‘tight’ for their husbands.”  According to religious tolerance.org, women may also be reinfibulated if their husband plans to be away for an extended period of time to prevent infidelity.

Female Genital Mutilation is commonly, and incorrectly, linked with Islam in many people’s minds.  FGM is a cultural practice.  While the practice does take place in some Muslim countries, it originated in Africa and predates Islam.  Furthermore, Islamic teachings forbid most types of FGM.

There are many reasons given for FGM, ranging from specious claims of health benefits to assertions that the practice enhances femininity (marked by docility and obedience) and the rather blunt reality that it “reduces a woman’s desire for sex, therefore reducing the chance of sex outside marriage.”  The most common reasons given are references to custom and tradition.  Older women subject young girls to mutilation because their mothers mutilated them.

Though the reasons for practicing FGM are well documented – if misguided – the original intent of the practice is not known.  Common sense would seem to suggest an attempt to control a woman’s sexuality or reproduction.  The nature of infibulation, in particular, seems to support this view.

Some, however, have drawn parallels between FGM and male circumcision.  They would argue that it is a cultural practice akin to face shaving, tattooing, foot-binding or other cultural practices associated with attracting a partner – but how many people die from shaving?

Regardless of why FGM originally emerged, it is a serious problem.  Young girls are, in essence, being tortured and permanently damaged against their will.  Not only is FGM an appalling violation of these girls’ human rights, it is a sickening reminder of the failure of the U.S. and other rich, industrialized countries’ unwillingness to protect them.

FGM is a tragic physical representation of the poverty and ignorance more than one billion people live with every day.  It is a reminder that, rather than be a powerful positive force in the world, build schools or economies, or fund rural education programs that could actually stop FGM, the United States consistently acts in the interest of immediate security concerns and maximization of American corporate profits.

Sad news came through this morning that Rose-Jane and baby Natale were deported, despite a passenger protest. Four policemen and four Home Office officials boarded the flight with Rose-Jane and spoke to passengers who were refusing to fasten their seatbelts and they capitulated. She is going to go to the British Embassy in Kenya to appeal against her removal.

Speaking to a supporter by telephone just before take-off, Rose-Jane wished to thank everyone who had supported her by writing letters on her behalf.

http://bit.ly/rosejane

(source)

There is no universal agreement on the universal applicability, validity and desirability of human rights. This post focuses on what I believe is a particularly strong attack on the universality of human rights, namely cultural relativism (henceforth CR). I’ll describe it, and then I’ll try to poke a few holes in it.

It’s a strong attack because it’s a moral one. It’s not just about things like national sovereignty, non-intervention or the supposed economic necessity of authoritarian government. Why is it moral? Because it’s about the importance of culture for people and for people’s identity, and because it’s about safeguarding cultural diversity. These are obviously important concerns, but not – as defenders of CR assume – the only or most important concerns (see here). It’s not obvious that concerns about culture, identity and diversity have – automatically and in all cases – priority over other moral concerns, e.g. those inherent in human rights. Yet that is the claim of CR.

CR is therefore a one-dimensional moral theory, or one that fails to take into account different values and different moral concerns. It is also a conservative moral theory: it wants to protect cultures and cultural or national identities against externally imposed change. It’s true that the universality of human rights, and human rights promotion that is based on this notion of universality, sometimes require the modification or abandonment of certain cultural practices. Think for example of FGM. We can limit the possible impact of CR on human rights by stating that this is the exception and that human rights in general targets distinctly non-cultural practices (e.g. corruption, state violence, disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest, terrorism etc.).

However, let’s assume – for the moment and for the sake of argument – that CR has a residual impact, namely with regard to those cases in which human rights promotion requires modifications in cultural practices. CR draws an analogy between those cases and the experience of western colonialism. Human rights promotion is, according to CR, neo-colonialism. Like colonialism, it destroys cultural identities and cultural diversity. When cultural practices that violate human rights are eliminated following outside pressure, the ultimate result is that all cultures become like the culture of the West. Human rights promotion is the export of western culture, exactly the same thing that happened during colonialism. (I should say that this view defines only one type of CR. Other types argue that human rights promotion harms cultures but not necessarily imposes the culture of the West). The reason for this is that human rights aren’t just legal or moral rules; they are an expression of the individualism and antagonism that is typical of the West and incompatible with the collectivism, harmony and respect for authority that can be found in many other cultures.

I have at least 3 objections to CR.

• Human rights don’t, by nature, promote individualism or antagonism. Many rights are designed to protect communities, bind them together, and allow them to co-exist with other communities (religious freedom, assembly, tolerance etc.). So if we accept that the West is individualistic and antagonistic, compared to other cultures (which I don’t accept), human rights promotion cannot be the imposition of the culture of the West. On the contrary, under this hypothesis, human rights are rather more typical of other, more communitarian cultures. And indeed we see that some of the values inherent in human rights can be found in different cultures. Also, the fact that human rights are regularly violated in the West (as elsewhere) is an indication that these rights are probably not central elements of the culture of the West (if there is such a thing as “a culture of the West”). The struggle for human rights is more a struggle between different parts of a culture than a struggle between cultures.
• Another problem is the understanding of change. The cultural change required by human rights doesn’t imply the destruction of culture. It’s just a certain limited number of cultural practices that have to be modified, not the culture as a whole. Most elements of most cultures are not incompatible with human rights, and can even profit from them.
• And finally, why should the protection of culture be the supreme value? Why should culture always have priority over everything, even human rights? Culture is important to people, but their rights are as well. Accepting rights violations for the sake of culture means that this culture is considered to be more important than the people that are a part of it. Let’s not forget that culture is there for people, not the other way around.

Fifth attempt to remove, Rose-Jane & Natale

Last week a passenger protest saved Rose-Jane and baby Natale from deportation, when some passengers on the Nairobi-bound flight refused to fasten their safety belts. But now the Home Office is trying again. Another deportation attempt is set for Wednesday.

Rose Jane & baby Natlale, were snatched from their Home in Hyde, Cheshire on Sunday 1st of November. An attempt to remove them on Wednesday 4th November failed, when Rose Jane refused to fly. Then again on 12th November, when a passenger protest stopped the deportation. Mother and child are currently in Yarl’s Wood IRC, and new removal directions have been set for Wednesday 18th November from London Heathrow terminal 5 on British Airways Flight BA65 @10:00 to Nairobi. Please help.

This is the FIFTH time they have been put through this inhuman treatment. Please do what you can to help. Ask British Airways not to accept these passengers – they are in real danger. Ask the Home Secretary to reconsider – a mother and daughter are at risk of genital mutilation, or worse. The more emails, faxes, phone calls we send, the more chance we have of saving Rose-Jane and Natale.

If you are able, please go to Heathrow on Wednesday to leaflet passengers, asking them for help – it worked last week, it could work again on Wednesday. Contact Dee Robinson at New Routes for leaflets email: newroutes@tiscali.co.uk

For more information on Rose-Jane and Natale, see the website at: http://bit.ly/rosejane

What you can do to help:

1) Email/Phone Willie Walsh, Chief Executive Officer British Airways and urge him not to carry out the forced removal of Rose-Jane & Natale. Please use the attached Rose-JaneBANov18 You can copy, amend or write your own version and add your address at the top – if you do please include all the following details: Please do not remove, Rose-Jane Wanjohi and her daughter Natale, due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Wednesday 18th November from London Heathrow terminal 5 on British Airways Flight BA65 @10:00 to Nairobi.

Email: willie.walsh@ba.com

Online Contact customer relations:

http://tinyurl.com/BACustomerRelations

Customer Relations phone: 0844 493 0 787 Monday-Friday 08:00-18:30 (hold line till operator answers)

2) Email/Fax, Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP Secretary of State for the Home Office asking that Ms. Rosejane Wanjohi HO ref. W1119087 and daughter Natale, be granted protection in the UK. Please download “model letter” Rose-JaneAJNov18 which you can copy/amend/write your own version (if you do so, please remember to include their HO ref W1119087)

Fax: 020 8760 3132(00 44 20 8760 3132 if you are faxing from outside UK)

Emails: Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

UKBApublicenquiries@UKBA.gsi.gov.uk

“CIT – Treat Official” CITTO@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Thursday saw the latest installment in the long-running case of Pamela Izevbekhai (pictured above). Ms Izevbekhai first sought asylum in 2005 on the basis that her two young daughters Naomi and Jemima were at risk of female genital mutilation in their home country of Nigeria. See here and here for information on female genital mutilation and refugee law. Ms. Izevbekhai says that her eldest daughter Elizabeth bled to death as a result of the practice. The Times gives further details of the story here. A documentary on the case is on Youtube and details of a grassroots campaign in support of the Izevbekhais are here. Amnesty International, Residents Against Racism, the NWCI, Fine Gael,  The Rape Crisis Centre and the Children’s Rights Alliance, have all at various points expressed support for the family.

Ms. Izevbekhai has been through the asylum process and her application has been rejected. In I v. MJELR [2008] IEHC 23 Ms. Izevbekhai asked the High Court to quash the deportation orders made by the Minister on foot of his decision to deport her and her daughters. The High Court failed to find any basis for judicial review and refused to quash the order. Ms. Izevbekhai has appealed to the Supreme Court. The State has brought a motion to have her appeal struck out on the grounds that fraudulent statements were made in her original High Court actions. The State sets out that a death certificate and medical documents used by her to evidence the death of her daughter Elizabeth’s death as a result of female circumcision were forgeries. Ms Izevbekhai represented herself on Thursday after her fourth set of lawyers sought to withdraw from the case, apparently because they had received certain threats, which are reportedly the latest in a series made to Ms. Izevbekhai and her supporters. A fifth legal team will take up her case in time for next year. Maeve Sheehan reported on this week’s Supreme Court proceedings in the Independent here. Ms Izevbekhai plans to rely on alternative documents in the course of her appeal. Her position is that while the documents were forged (she insists that her husband obtained them without her knowledge) the facts that they were used to prove are true. A series of conflicting media interviews with men claiming to be the doctor who attended Ms. Izevbekhai at the time of her daughter’s death have further muddied the waters in this respect, as has the Nigerian government’s much-disputed claim that female genital mutilation is unknown in Nigeria. The State has insisted on engaging with the case to the full extent permitted by the law, on the basis that Mrs Izevbekhai has engaged in ‘deception’ and has abused the asylum process. On Thursday, the Chief Justice ruled that due to the volume of cases waiting to be heard by the court, her appeal  could not be given the priority being sought by lawyers for the State. It will be heard next year.

Rose-Jane Wanjohi and her UK-born daughter Natale were due to be deported today. They were put on a plane at Heathrow but, thanks to the efforts of supporters, are now back to the relative safety of Yarls Wood.

Rose-Jane and Natale were taken from detention and “escorted” onto a British Airways flight by four security guards this morning. Meanwhile, supporters were leafleting passengers about to board British Airways Flight BA65 to Nairobi. The leaflets explained that a fellow-passenger and baby were being taken against their will into extreme danger. As Rose-Jane sat on the plane, several passengers refused to fasten their seat belts. The pilot would not take off until it was resolved, and so Rose-Jane and Natale were taken from the plane.

Speaking from the van taking her back to the detention centre, Rose-Jane told NCADC:

“I don’t know what to say. I am so happy. I would like to thank my friends, and thank the people on the plane, for saving my life and my daughter. Thank you so much. God bless you.”

Rose-Jane and Natale are not out of danger yet. For details on how you can help, see: http://bit.ly/rosejane

Thursday 12 November – Demonstration at Heathrow
Stop the removal of Rosejane and Natale

Please help Rosejane and Natale if you can, join others at Heathrow Airport in the attempt to prevent their deportation. If you can’t get to Heathrow, see below for how you can help. Contact Dee (details below) if you can make it to Heathrow.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

There will be a demonstration at Heathrow airport Terminal 5 from 6:00am this Thursday morning, November 12, to try to prevent the forcible removal of Rosejane Wanjohi and her daughter Natale.

If you cannot join us, please take a moment to read about her plight and write to Alan Johnston at the Home Office and to British Airways.

Full background/model letters to Home Secretary & British Airways @

http://j.mp/rosejane.

Rosejane lived in Norwich for a year before being dispersed to Manchester and we know that what she has said is the truth. She and Natale are very dear to many people and their lives will be seriously threatened if they are removed. Please make a stand.

Thank you.

Dee

Enquiries/further information:

Dee Robinson

Mob: 077 9966 1009

newroutes@tiscali.co.uk

How to get to Heathrow Terminal 5

The Piccadilly Line on London Underground is the most cost-effective rail route to and from the airport. Heathrow Terminal 5 is in London Underground Zone 6. Tickets are available at all London Underground stations, from ticket offices or ticket machines.

It takes less than an hour to travel between central London and Terminal 5, and you shouldn’t have to wait longer than 10 minutes for a train, even at off-peak times. When you get to the Terminal 5 station, finding your way is easy. Just take one of the lifts straight up to Ground Level.

Source for this message: Dee Robinson

Rose Jane & baby Natlale, were snatched from their Home in Hyde, Cheshire on Sunday 1st of November. An attempt to remove them on Wednesday 4th November failed, when Rose Jane refused to fly. Mother and child are currently in Yarl’s Wood IRC, and new removal directions have been set for Thursday 12th November from London Heathrow terminal 5 on British Airways Flight BA65 @10:00 to Nairobi.

Please support the right of Rose Jane and her daughter to stay in Britain

Defend the right to work! Defend all Asylum Seekers!

Rose Jane is a Christian who comes from the Mathare district of Nairobi, Kenya, where she was a teacher. Her late husband became involved with the Mungiki sect an outlawed sect in Nairobi in late 2005 and took the Mungiki oath. Her late husband wanted her to join the sect, which would amongst other things result in her having to undergo female genital mutilation. She refused and fled, he later died. She has a daughter Natale who was born in the UK. If she is returned to Kenya she fears that her daughter and herself would be forced to go through female genital mutilation and persecution at the hands of the Mungiki.

The Home Office are aware that the Mungiki seek to impose Female Genital Mutilation and other forms of violence on women and children, this includes wives, partners, children and other female family members of those men who have taken the Mungiki oath. The Home Office also is aware that there is evidence of the Mungiki imposing political and cultural beliefs upon others. (UKBA Current Operational Guidance Note Kenya ~ September 2008)

There is evidence that the Mungiki seek to impose FGM and other forms of violence on women and children other than those who have been initiated into their sect. In particular, such women and children include the wives, partners, children and other female family members of those men who have taken the Mungiki oath. All of Kenya has Mungiki who can travel freely around it and the Mungiki following are already spread everywhere in Kenya. Insufficient protection is available from the Kenyan authorities for such persons.

VM v SSHD (FGM-risks-Mungiki-Kikuyu/Gikuyu) Kenya CG [2008] UKAIT 00049

BBC News: Kenya’s secretive Mungiki sect
http://tinyurl.com/Mungikisect

Women Asylum Seekers Together (WAST) have set up a campaign to Defend Rose Jane and her daughter

Rose-Jane has built a new life for herself and her daughter Natale, who was born in Britain and has never been to Kenya. They are now settled in Hyde, Cheshire and have lived in Britain for 3 years. Rose-Jane has been an important member of Women Asylum Seekers Together (WAST) and has supported many other women asylum seekers and others members of her community in Hyde where she is member of the church.

Please take urgent action now and help us to help get Rose-Jane and her daughter back to Hyde where she belongs.

What you can do to help:

1) Email/Phone Willie Walsh, Chief Executive Officer British Airways and urge him not to carry out the forced removal of Rose-Jane & Natale. Please use the attached Rose-JaneBA.doc. You can copy, amend or write your own version and add your address at the top – if you do please include all the following details: Please do not remove, Rose-Jane Wanjohi and her daughter Natale, due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Thursday 12th November from London Heathrow terminal 5 on British Airways Flight BA65 @10:00 to Nairobi.

Email: willie.walsh@ba.com

Online Contact customer relations:
http://tinyurl.com/BACustomerRelations

Customer Relations phone: 0844 493 0 787 Monday-Friday 08:00-18:30 (hold line till operator answers)

2) Email/Fax, Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP Secretary of State for the Home Office asking that Ms. Rosejane Wanjohi HO ref. W1119087 and daughter Natale, be granted protection in the UK. Please download “model letter” Rose-JaneAJ.doc which you can copy/amend/write your own version (if you do so, please remember to include their HO ref W1119087)

Fax: 020 8760 3132(00 44 20 8760 3132 if you are faxing from outside UK)

Emails: Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

UKBApublicenquiries@UKBA.gsi.gov.uk

“CIT – Treat Official” CITTO@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Please notify the campaign of any Email/faxes sent:

Rose Jane and her daughter Must Stay Campaign

C/O WAST
Women’s EVH
ADA House
77 Thompson Street
Manchester
M4 5FY
wastmanchester@yahoo.co.uk

Source for this Message:

Rose Jane and her daughter Must Stay Campaign

What motivates people to act morally? I propose 3 reasons:

1. some people buy into a legitimation for particular moral or ethical codes
2. some people, as a result of their process of socialization, abide by certain moral or ethical codes as a matter of habit
3. some people have sympathy for other human beings, and as such avoid or prevent behaviors that harm others

Most of the debates about whether or not we can be ethical without absolutes—or without morality being built into the nature of the universe—are focused only on #1. On the one hand, some people offer absolute legitimations and suggest that without absolute legitimations there would be chaos. On the other hand, some people deconstruct those absolute legitimations and suggest that we never needed them in the first place—although the explanations as to why we never needed them are amazingly diverse.

It seems like most ethical philosophers today largely ignore #2 and #3. #2 isn’t of much use to us unless we have kids to train or unless we’re elementary school teachers, but #3 is pretty damn important.

In the middle of Huck Finn, Huck is trying to decide between his provincial Christianity—which tells him that he’ll go to hell for theft if he doesn’t return the slave Jim to his rightful owners—and his concern for Jim’s welfare. He chooses Jim’s welfare because he has sympathy for him. #3 trumped both #1 and #2 at the same time.

Female Genital Mutilation is a classic weird case for philosophers debating ethical relativism: if ethics lack absolute foundations, then is it okay for them to do this practice, even though we don’t think it’s okay? should our ethical norms apply to them even if they don’t agree with them? how could they apply universally if they’re not universally grounded?

But it gets a lot less complicated if we turn to #3 and think about whether or not the practice is harmful, and whether or not we give a shit about the people it harms. #3 will motivate when #1 and #2 won’t.

I also prioritize the usefulness of #3 because #1 often won’t work without #3. If I’m talking to a psychopath who is incapable of sympathy, no amount of “absolute” legitimation will convince him of anything.

FGM/FGC is carried out with special knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass or razor blades. Antiseptics are not generally used except when carried out by medical practitioners.

Female Genital Cutting (FGC/FGM) is partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other female genital organs.

“The practice of FGC as damaging to women both physically and emotionally. FGC is typically done without anesthesia or antibiotics. In some regions, midwives in the community perform FGC, but in many cases, people who are not medically trained perform it.” -The World Health Organization (WHO)

FGC is usally performed females between the ages of 4 and 12.

The reasons behind FGC are complex. Parents who support FGC believe that having it done will empower their daughters, ensure their ability to get married and protect the family’s reputation. FGC is performed as a rite of passage into womanhood. It also is performed to preserve a woman’s chastity by restraining her sexual behavior.

More than 130 million girls and women have received FGC.

FGC can cause many health problems, such as bleeding, infection, pain, problems going to the bathroom, problems with gynecological health, and psychological and emotional stress.

In the U.S. there is a Federal law that makes the practice of FGC on anyone younger than 18 years of age illegal within this country. It is a felony punishable by fines or up to a 5-year prison term.

For more information on FGC, visit these websites:

http://womenshealth.gov/faq/female-genital-cutting-EASY.cfm

http://www.who.int/health_topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/

For literature on this issue, contact:
The Population Information Program of the Johns Hopkins Center for Communications Programs, The FGM Resource Group, POPLINE,
111 Market Place, Suite 310
Baltimore, MD 21202-4012
Telephone: (410) 659-6300
Internet Address: http://www.jhuccp.org

12/10/2009: In February the Sudanese government legalized the Sunna form of Femal Genital Mutilation (FGM). The Council of Ministers dropped the 13th article of the 2009 Children’s Act which banned FGM to take into account the fatwa that distinguishes “harmful” circumcision from Sunna. (World Pulse)

As a young girl, Sudanese Voices of Our Future correspondent Halima Mohamed Abdel Rahman was circumcised at the hands of the elder women of her community. Now an advocate for the practice’s abolition, she shares her own story and calls out for reform. My Story: I remember being forced to lie down on three old mattresses: two stretched on an angareb (a wooden bed popular in Sudan); the other plied under my torso. My midwife Hajja sat on a low wooden stool. Our eyes met as she faced my naked body. “Now you are a woman,” she said. “A real woman never cries. I will remove this dirt, and you will become clean, a real Muslim.”

My Story:

I remember being forced to lie down on three old mattresses: two stretched on an angareb (a wooden bed popular in Sudan); the other plied under my torso. My midwife Hajja sat on a low wooden stool. Our eyes met as she faced my naked body. “Now you are a woman,” she said. “A real woman never cries. I will remove this dirt, and you will become clean, a real Muslim.”

There were several women around me during the ritual. Two took hold of my thighs, while two others firmly held my arms. Another sat behind me and put my head on her lap. With her right hand she covered my eyes. As she put her left arm on my chest, she must have felt my heart beating fast because she said, “Honor your father’s name. Don’t be afraid; this is not painful. You have seen your sister and your cousins. They did not cry.” I didn’t dare utter a sound as tears ran down my face.

“In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful,” Hajja said. She raised her fat hand, ornamented with golden bracelets, and addressed the women around her. “Open her widely,” she murmured.

I felt the fingers of her left hand moving my nudity apart and then a sharp needle piercing my flesh up and down and in the middle. I cried at the top of my voice and tried to raise my torso to kick the two women who were firmly holding my thighs.

“Oh women, hold her firmly!” Hajja cried.

I was anesthetic resistant.

Suddenly, she started cutting. The pain was excruciating. I cried like a mad person. Her head was bent between my thighs, but I felt as if she was cutting in the middle of my skull. More women were called to hold me down. Some of them nicknamed me coward.

Hajja called one of the old ladies over and asked, “Does everything look okay?”

“No, no,” said the old woman, “Cut this piece. Yes, this one. And remove her clitoris. What is the use of it? And, remove the dirt. Do as I tell you.” It was Grandmother Amna, doing her best to establish herself as the expert in the anatomy of young girls.

Again Hajja bent between my thighs and cut me with the razor. Or perhaps it was a kitchen knife. I was sure of one thing only: She wasn’t wearing gloves or covering her head. She wore only her white short dress. She was fat and stout and mowed my flesh with no mercy.

And then came the stitches: nine in all, causing me pain and panic whenever I tried to move.

I was only 6 years old—too tiny to struggle.

Between Two Atrocities

The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that in Africa about three million girls are at risk for this barbaric practice annually.

My country of Sudan ranks fifth among countries practicing female genital mutilation (FGM) worldwide. According to a UNICEF report, 89% of Sudanese women are circumcised. That’s roughly 14 million women and girls.

In Sudan, there are three types of FGM practiced today: ‘Sunna’, removal of the hood and part of the clitoris; Clitoridectomy, removal of the clitoris and adjacent labia; and Infibulation, which consists of a complete Clitoridectomy as well as stitching of the labia, allowing only a small gap for urine and menstrual blood to pass through. In my point of view type one is the least practiced.

Ironically, this decision came just one day before the world celebrated International Day of Zero Tolerance of Female Genital Mutilation.

With this decision, my dear homeland has taken decades of work against these practices back to square one. . . .

September 29, 2009

by Halima Mohamed Abdel Rahman

Source: World Pulse

Today while perusing links posted on twitter, I came across this story on Newsweek.  Now, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is no new topic to me.  We actually covered it in one of my sociology-type classes in high school.  This article though made it re-hit home akin to the way it did the first time I learned about FGM.

For those who don’t know, FGM is a cultural practice in which some part of a little girl’s genitals are cut off.  This can range from the least severe of “circumcising” her clitoris to the most severe where the clitoris and inner and outer labia are cut off and the vagina is then sewn closed with only a pin-sized hole left for urinating and menstruating.  To top it off this procedure is most often done in people’s homes with dirt floors by the elderly women of the community who use unsanitized knives and sometimes even shards of glass to perform the procedure.

Why is this done to these little girls?  Because their cultures perceive women’s sexuality as evil and dangerous.  Because if the woman gets actual pleasure from sex, she will be less subservient to her husband and more likely to leave him.  Mainly though, it’s that they think a woman’s genitals are evil and must be cut off.

To put it really lightly:  THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.

A basic human right is the ability to have an enjoyable sex life if you so choose, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.  Can you imagine if you knew you were completely incapable of ever having an orgasm?  Can you imagine what an affect that would have on your relationship?  It is a scientific fact that when a woman orgasms oxycontin is released in her brain causing her to bond with her sexual partner.  These women don’t even have that opportunity.  It was cut away from them.  It gets worse, though.  According to the victims in the article, sometimes the procedure is done so poorly that the woman is left with painful scar tissue, thereby making it not only not pleasurable but also painful for her partner to touch her.  This isn’t a case of a woman making the choice to abstain from sex.  It’s a case of a woman wanting to enjoy the pleasure others take for granted, but she can’t because of what was done to her as a child without her consent.  Honestly, Sila talking about her love for romance novels being marred by the fact she couldn’t have even a little bit of the pleasure the main characters have broke my heart.

Apparently though, there is some hope for women who had this atrocity committed against them.  The Newsweek article states that there is a new medical procedure that can at least partly restore the female genitals.  According to the article, this new surgery was discovered due to the work to discover genital restructuring for gender reassignment surgery.  NATURALLY, this surgery is deemed “cosmetic” by American insurance companies, leaving these mostly immigrant, poor women having to pay for their own reconstruction surgery.  This is akin to telling a burn victim her reconstructive surgery is cosmetic.  It is WRONG.

Well, Dr. Bowers of the hospital where Sila got her surgery won’t stand for it.  Dr. Bowers knows what it’s like to feel that your genitalia doesn’t match who you are.  She is a transgendered person herself, and she performs the procedure free of charge for these women.  Dr. Bowers says, “you cannot charge money to reverse a crime against humanity.”  Dr. Bowers is a hero.

Of course in an ideal world, Dr. Bowers wouldn’t need to perform this surgery on women, because their genitals wouldn’t be mutilated to start with.  I REFUSE to kowtow to political correctness and say “it’s a part of their culture.  We shouldn’t condemn it.”  It is WRONG, and I will keep saying it is WRONG until no more little girls are mutilated.

If you would like to help a woman who is a victim of FGM, please visit the nonprofit Clitoraid’s website.

Click here for more information on FGM.

Egyptian cleric, Yusuf El-Badry, landed a victory for Islam and took a huge step back for human rights when he recently won a court case in Egypt that reinstated female circumcision on grounds that it is in the religious doctrine of Islam. This barbaric and unspeakably violent practice is now protected through the government.

“The decision to criminalize circumcision means criminalizing something from Islam,” El-Badry bellowed in court. “This is a disaster.”

Read more

My recent NewsReal blog on Naomi Wolf and female genital mutilation (FGM) – also posted at Frontpagemag.com and Jihadwatch.org — has triggered a heated debate in the blogs’ comments sections on all three sites. The key arguments in these three sections personify some of the Left’s key tactics in its romance with tyranny and terror. It is crucial to shed light on these arguments in order to crystallize the malice, dishonesty and heartlessness which lie at the center of the leftist agenda. It also helps strengthen our efforts to fight on behalf of tyranny’s victims, which, in this case, are the hundreds of thousands of young girls who face the barbarity of female genital mutilation yearly around the world.

The recent controversy surrounds a Frontpage interview I did with Ines Laufer, an anti-FGM activist. Along with Lucy Mashua, a Kenyan victim of FGM, she is presently leading a new campaign, sponsoredgirl.com, to protect girls from this barbarity.

In my NewsReal blog, I raised the question of whether Naomi Wolf, who postures as a feminist concerned with women’s rights, will be at all interested in joining Laufer’s and Mashua’s campaign. The issue at stake here is that leftist feminists pretend they care about women, but when it comes to women who suffer under adversary cultures, they refuse to act, since doing so will legitimize their own societies which they despise and work to destroy. Thus, millions of women under Islamic gender apartheid have been abandoned by  leftist feminists, whose devotions lie with their anti-Western and anti-American faiths. The scholar and true feminist Phyllis Chesler has documented this phenomenon powerfully in her book The Death of Feminism.

To stress the main essence of this problem regarding Wolf and the hypocrites in her “feminist” camp, I asked in my blog:

“Will Naomi Wolf join the battle? For instance, will she denounce the Islamic theology and teachings that lead to the mutilation of Muslim girls in Islamic countries?”

My critics who seek to delegitimize my main point have now come forward and think they are scoring a powerful blow against me by, typically, pointing out that FGM is not exclusively Muslim. This is a key traditional tactic of the Left. In order to whitewash the barbarity of adversary cultures, they consistently exonerate it by pointing out that some kind of injustice exists somewhere else — and, especially, of course, how it exists in our own society and civilization.

Thus, some of the critics revel in how Lucy Semiyan Mashua, who is leading the new campaign against FGM, is from Kenya and comes from the Massai, a Christian African tribe. This is how their mental gymnastics work: FGM is not just an Islamic practice, so we can’t say anything critical about Islam when it is connected to FGM. This way we can’t say that anything is really better than anything else, and we especially can’t say that our civilization is better than Islam’s or that we have anything to teach Islamic societies.

This kind of thinking deliberately incapacitates any action that could be implemented on behalf of Islam’s victims. If you try to do something on behalf of the victims, which begins with honesty about who is perpetrating the crime and why, the critics come forward and say: “Hey, but it isn’t just Muslims that do it.” Then the critics feel really good about themselves for pointing this out and, yes, go home and do nothing about the subject at hand. So in the case of FGM, the leftist feels self-satisfied that he’s pointed out that it’s not just Islam that does it, he engages in no action to help the victims and the mutilation of girls under Islam continues.

Naturally, Muslims are not the only ones who perpetrate FGM. Of course, FGM is practised outside of Islam, including under non-Islamic African tribal cultures. I never said anywhere that FGM is only practiced by Muslims. But the key issue here is that Muslims are the principal religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And the reality is that if you are a victim of FGM, then the chances are very high that you live in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture.

Now within the context of Islamic FGM, the barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology. This is the case in Egypt, where this crime against girls is waged on a massive scale. The Egyptian government banned FGM in 1996, but an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997 because of the ferocious uprising of the Islamic clerics, who fervently pointed to Islamic teachings to re-implement this war against women’s sexuality. The Muslim mutilators pointed to traditional Islamic teachings that sanction FGM, which include the Prophet Muhammad’s instruction that circumcising girls is “a preservation of honor for women.” Also, a legal manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — states that circumcision is obligatory for both boys and girls.

Keeping FGM institutionalized also helps the Islamic mutilators keep the structure of Islamic gender apartheid in place. Keeping FGM legitimized and at work is one of the most effective means of keeping women subjugated and caged. After all, the strategy behind amputating the clitoris is clearly to kill the woman’s sexual desire and pleasure, which, in this diseased misogynist mindset, reduces the chances that she will ever toy with the notions of autonomy, equality and self-determination.

Question: How can we possibly help Egyptian girls, and other girls who are targeted for FGM under Islam, if we do not confront the philosophy behind the institutionalization of this violence? You cannot save Muslim girls from FGM without crystallizing what it is within the religion that gives fertile soil and legitimization to FGM. The way to save human beings from this violence is to isolate those teachings and to have them nullified – and this involves confronting certain Islamic teachings.

Nowhere am I saying that we don’t work against FGM in non-Muslim environments. We do that too. We do it all. But we can’t save the victims of Islamic mutilation if we are not honest about the Islamic impulses for that mutilation.

So the main point of my Newsreal blog, where I asked whether Naomi Wolf would join the battle against FGM, was to point out the hypocrisy of the Left’s silence on this matter. It’s a silence that stems from the fact that leftists like Wolf know that admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture will legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that they cannot make without risking their entire identities as social critics. That’s why the leftist forces in our society do their best to excuse FGM with the tired old mantra: it’s not only Muslims that do it – as if inaction to save human beings from evil is somehow justified because a sin might exist somewhere else.

What a revolting image: the smug leftist turning his or her back on the victims of Islamic FGM because a non-Muslim somewhere perpetrated FGM. How does this self-satisfied inhumanity save the Muslim girls who will be mutilated in the future? How does it help the non-Muslim girls?

Hypothetical question: if we could have saved the Jewish inmates from Auschwitz before they were murdered, would it have been right to abort the rescue operation (which would have involved an honesty about Nazi doctrine) upon discovering that someone, somewhere, in some other place, said or did something anti-Semitic? Hey, it’s not just the Nazis that do it. Would that have sufficed to justify not lifting a hand to rescue Auschwitz’s inmates?

Some other connected tactics surface in the debate in the comments sections on my blog.  One critic thinks he is making a big point by stating that Morocco, one of the countries that Wolf visited during her political pilgrimage, does not practice FGM. But whatever the extent to which FGM is practiced or not in Morocco, the point is that it is practiced in Egypt and Jordan – where Wolf visited and says she found a vibrant sexuality lurking under the veil.

Another critic thinks she has scored a knockout blow against me by revealing that she did a Google search and found that Wolf has written about FGM. The issue is not whether Wolf has written about FGM. The issue is whether she has condemned the societies and cultures within which it is practiced, and whether she has done so on the premise that our society is more humane and has something to teach those societies and cultures. She has not. In The Beauty Myth, for instance, Wolf makes a critique of FGM only in passing, with a “everyone is guilty” theme that ends up comparing FGM with modern-day breast surgery.

The core issue is that Wolf does not voice her moral indignation against Islamic FGM and the Islamic theology that serves as its fertile soil. She does not condemn African tribal FGM for its African tribal roots, but in the context of how a universal misogyny is somehow responsible.

Thus, in the Islamic context, for instance, it is clear that someone like Wolf will never act, because protecting little girls’ genitals is less important for her than protecting herself from the charge of being Islamophobic. Her anti-Americanism, ultimately, has to be prioritized in a sacred and protected place.

In essence, because of Naomi Wolf and her like-minded feminist comrades, here is the situation: if you are a victimized girl being abused in a Muslim culture, then you have the unfortunate distinction of being part of a group that the West and FGM activists have difficulty helping, because the lib-Left has made sure that the Muslim culture and religion can never be criticized and, therefore, that its victims can never be protected or saved.

This is just another chapter of a long, dark and grotesque story – the story of the Left, with its hands drenched in human blood, sacrificing human beings on the altar of utopian ideals.

[Editors' note: Read more about the Left’ complicity in Islamic gender apartheid in Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror]

Naomi Wolf, Lucy Semiyan Mashua

I have a little follow-up to my run-in with Naomi Wolf over the sexiness of the burqa.

As our readers will be familiar, Wolf went on a political pilgrimage to Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt and found a thriving sexuality behind the veil.

I have been wondering ever since if Wolf was at all concerned about what state women’s vaginas were in within the sexual paradises that she visited and praised, seeing that the barbaric crime of female genital mutilation is perpetrated with high frequency in the areas she visited.

But not that a fellow traveler would care about anything like that.

Who does care is Lucy Semiyan Mashua, a freedom fighter from Kenya who survived several kinds of genital mutilation, slavery, child abuse, rape and torture. Today she is leading a new global campaign against female genital mutilation. Will you help? It might just take signing a petition. Please enter the fight by reading all about the new effort to save girls from this genocide.

Will Naomi Wolf join the battle? For instance, will she denounce the Islamic theology and teachings that lead to the mutilation of Muslim girls in Islamic countries?

Should we hold our breath?

Excerpts from a new interesting report Shariah Law and Islamist Ideology in Western Europe presented by the Center for Islamic Pluralism:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a pre-Islamic practise. While we agree that abuse of women and children under colour of alleged Shariah cannot be ascribed to Islamic religious inspiration per se, we believe that the example of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself the leader of the Muslim world and where so-called “honour” crime, FGM, forced marriage, forced divorce, and related customs are institutionalised, shows that their adoption in Islamic cultures, and the complicity of Muslim religious leaders in enabling them by failing to oppose them or assist victims, must be recognised. (…)

As with so-called “honour” murder, Kurdistan is especially known as an area of FGM, outside the African and peninsular Arab region.

September 11 2009 is a day that Belgium-based Nigerian artist Godfrey Williams-Okorodus will not forget in a hurry. Godfrey has been championing a campaign against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) using art as the tool of his campaign. In respect of this campaign, Godfrey’s work has been shown in the British Parliament, Harvard Faculty Club, Cornell University and several other venues in Europe. On September 11 2009 the art works were displayed in a small town called Ypres in Belgium. Godfrey had an exhibition of his own works along with those of other artists.

The organizers of the exhibition completely ignored the presence of our own Godfrey Williams-Okorodus while the officials of the city and organizers of the event made speeches and keynote addresses. As the originator of the campaign, Godfrey was left in shock. He was not even mentioned or acknowledge in the program. According to him, “I have never in my entire professional career felt so low. Of course I would rather die than allow such injustice and I raised a serious fuss and I was allowed to say something. The question I want answered is: can this same treatment be meted out to a Belgian artist?”

The second case was another incident that involved Godfrey and his friend Bode Owa who is a very well known black actor in Belgium. Bode was billed to perform at the exhibition mentioned above but when they got to Ypres they had to stop to get directions to the venue. In the process Bode spotted a wallet in the middle of the road. He picked it up and walked across to some youths to ask them if the wallet belonged to any of them but they answered in the negative.

So Bode opened the wallet and discovered that it belonged to a British man. Together Bode and Godfrey guessed it must belong to one of the tourists who have probably come to visit the graves of British soldiers killed during the World Wars. They decided to try to give the wallet to the owner rather than the police because Bode had a very nasty experience in the past where he took a wallet he found to the police and they detained and questioned him. The police even accused him of taking money from the wallet.

Anyway this time around Bode and Godfrey called the UK numbers on the complimentary cards that they found in the wallet and left messages saying that they found a wallet and they would like to return it to the owner. These 2 Nigerians even went to a pub in Ypres in an attempt to locate the owner of the wallet. They had seen a receipt from the pub inside the wallet.

After the nasty experience at the exhibition a call came through from the owner of the wallet and an arrangement was made to meet up at the exact spot where the wallet was found. The couple that came to retrieve the wallet actually stood in front of Godfrey and Bode but it was beyond their thoughts that these are the guys who have found their wallet.

It was rather comical as Bode was calling on the phone and Godfrey was looking at the whole scene. Bode had his back to the couple as he spoke to them on the phone on this tiny bridge where it should have been possible to see anyone who was talking on the phone.

Godfrey had to call the attention of the couple saying hey! We are the ones with the wallet. The first word that the man uttered in amazement was, YOU!!! That simple word spoke volumes as the man could not believe in his wildest dreams that he would lose a wallet and have it returned by two black men, one of them in dreadlocks. His jaw dropped and he was speechless for a few seconds. The couple did not know how to show their appreciation, the man was so grateful he refused to check the wallet to see if everything was intact in it.

The man told them that he trusted them so that he still refused to check the wallet even when Godfrey insisted that he should. The man didn’t need any proof of honesty for the case at hand. His wife was almost in tears with gratitude. The couples had planned to leave for Spain the next day but when they lost the wallet they cancelled the trip to Spain. But now they can continue their holidays by still taking the trip to Spain.

They offered money, meals, drinks but Bode and Godfrey turned down all. In Godfrey’s words: “their happiness was enough thanks for us”. Bode and Godfrey formed a common opinion that the next time the couple listens to someone saying how much blacks and other races are dishonest they can at least narrate this experience in Ypres.

Godfrey would like all black people to be like him, walk erect with their heads held high. He sent these words “I have been to a lot of places and I have seen countless injustices. That is why I am using my talent to let the world know that as long as I have breath in my body I will not let any form of injustice and victimization pass by me without protesting loudly and constantly be it wars, hunger, brutality etc. Even after I die my works will still be there to fight on. My parents told me as a child, do good and good will come to you”

With contributions from Godfrey Williams-Okorodus, Belgium
Email: okorodus_art@yahoo.co.uk

The Classic Way

Storage is the “classic” (and simple) way for retailers to achieve higher margins and offer the cheapest gas among their competitors. It is classic in the sense that many businesses, traders, and consumers utilize “storage” in different ways with different products to their economic and strategic advantage.

Suppose you own a gasoline station (and convenience store) with sales volume of 100,000 gallons per month. You have several competitors within a 5 mile radius, including a big-box retailer that promises the “lowest prices” around. So your gasoline margins are tight and likely to stay that way. You focus on your convenience store products and margins because you think there’s nothing you can do about gasoline margins, right? Wrong. Let your competitors think that.

Now suppose you have an opportunity to install a gasoline storage tank at no cost on your property – no construction, environmental, operating, or any other costs for the tank. It’s free! (It’s also invisible, so you might call it a “virtual tank”.) You can fill the tank with any amount of gasoline at any time (and hold it for as long as you like) to be drawn down at a later date when economically advantageous. Would you install the tank? Do you think having a storage tank filled with, for example, 50% of your monthly sales volume at a price of $1.50/gal or less relative to futures prices that you can draw down at any time will help improve your gasoline margins? Of course it would. That, in essence, is the Storage Road to higher fuel margins.

What exactly do you store in the virtual tank? Futures gasoline – the most volatile and impactful component of retail fuel margins (see Post #6) – in the form of futures contracts or “mini-futures” discussed in Post #3. Why store futures? Because futures drive retail prices, as detailed in Post #2 and as the following chart illustrates:

Mini-futures (UGA for gasoline) track futures and provide effective and less costly alternatives to futures contracts (see Post #3) for small volumes. (One futures contract is 42,000 gallons.)

6 shares UGA ≈ 100 gallons RBOB; ± $1/share UGA ≈ ± 6 ¢/g RBOB

Returning to your gasoline station that sells 100,000 gallons per month. Assume it’s January 2009 and you’d like to store 50,000 gallons of gasoline futures in your virtual tank. That’s a little more than 1 futures contract or 3,000 shares of UGA. Assume you store (buy) the 3000 shares of UGA at $22/share. Your virtual tank is “full” – and now you wait for the summer driving season. [This is what makes the strategy “classic”. It’s parallel to a buy-and-hold strategy in the stock market, though the potential holding period is shorter.)

It’s now June 2009 and you sell your 3000 shares of UGA at $30/share. You may decide to keep the profit on your mini-futures or share some of the profit with your customers at the pump. You choose the latter, still achieving higher margins with your mini-futures transaction by pocketing some of the profit, but also scoring points with your customers by truly having the “lowest prices” around (lower than the nearby big-box retailer) and – with the increased traffic to your location due to your low pump prices – racking up more sales in your convenience store.

Specifically, how might you share the profit?

1. UGA gain: 3000 shares x ($30 – $22/share) = $24,000
   
2. Share 50% of your gain with customers = $12,000
   
3. Existing monthly volume = 100,000 gallons; assume monthly volume increases 20% due to discounted pump price à new monthly volume = 120,000 gallons
   
4. Allocate $12,000 over July & August à pump price discount (relative to your price without the storage gain) = $12,000 ÷ (2 months x 120,000 gals per month) = 5 ¢/g
   

Increase your fuel margins, sales, and customers (and customer loyalty) with the Storage road. Offer the cheapest gas “in the neighborhood” and confound your competitors. As Charles Gibson of ABC News said (see Post #5) “… people will drive miles just to save a couple of pennies a gallon.” They may drive twice as far to save 5 ¢/g at your station — and visit your nice convenience store when they arrive.

Next … Options to Protect your Virtual Storage

Kenya television station Citizen TV interviewed human rights photojournalist Justo N. Casal where his work was shown in the Power Breakfast Show.

Mr. Casal talked about his work as a humanitarian as well as showed some of his photos taken in remote places of Africa and the teaser of the documentary,’The Cut’.

Justo also announced the launch of his latest documentary, ‘The Cut’ which will be available from Sept. 1st onwards for people to watch for free in the following web site: http://www.thecutdocumentary.org

Justo Casal thanks Citizen TV for the opportunity given to show his work and create awareness on topics such as refugees, cultural practices such as fgm and human rights issues as a whole.

Feel free to contact Justo Casal for any matter related to his work on: info@casalpix.com

Please click here to read the story on the new website