Crosswords0 min ago
Fgm Why Has It Taken So Long....
101 Answers
http://
...and what will they be charged with? GBH with intent? or is FGM a specific offence?
...and what will they be charged with? GBH with intent? or is FGM a specific offence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You're not going to be able to prosecute the parents of an adult patient if they underwent FGM BEFORE they came in to the UK.
It is illegal to take a child out of the UK to perform FGM or obviously have it done over here but if you had FGM BEFORE coming to live in the UK then that is not illegal. There are different types of FGM which range in severity and indeed country; not all the FGM types are practiced in all countries that practice FGM. The particular type of FGM in which a woman is sewn is I think the most severe kind (don't quote me but it is easy to check).
It is illegal to take a child out of the UK to perform FGM or obviously have it done over here but if you had FGM BEFORE coming to live in the UK then that is not illegal. There are different types of FGM which range in severity and indeed country; not all the FGM types are practiced in all countries that practice FGM. The particular type of FGM in which a woman is sewn is I think the most severe kind (don't quote me but it is easy to check).
Oh dear !
The point I was making was in relation to AOG's earlier post where he used the expression "walking on eggshells" which I took to refer to an overexagerrated deference to a certain religious sect. My post merely compared this to an equally biassed deference to another such sect in respect of male genital mutilation. I was NOT making any judgemental point as to the relative deplorability of the male and female operations.
The point I was making was in relation to AOG's earlier post where he used the expression "walking on eggshells" which I took to refer to an overexagerrated deference to a certain religious sect. My post merely compared this to an equally biassed deference to another such sect in respect of male genital mutilation. I was NOT making any judgemental point as to the relative deplorability of the male and female operations.
I think that its further complicated by the fact that many (?most) women who have been mutilated themselves have been brought up to believe that its right and "how things should be", just as most jewish men believe that circumcision of baby boys is right. Its very hard to prosecute if the victim is an adult and is complicit with the abusers.
Yes but as they are adults now, it will rely on them wanting to press charges. Now if a pregnant woman comes in to hospital who has undergone FGM, then they are advised that the new law means that if they have a daughter, they will be charged if child undergoes FGM. FGM can be performed at different ages too. I can't remember off the top of my head whether it's been decided on ways to monitor this (e.g. examining baby at crucial ages to ensure FGM not carried out or indeed before and after taken out of country) or if this is all still in discussions. Obviously not the easiest thing to monitor and does rely on police, social services, schools and health services working really closely together.
With regards to male circumcision opinions are divided. Personally I don't think it should be done for anything other than a medical reason and it is not done for religious reasons at my Trust (not sure about others but I think not). However, because it is not illegal, some urology consultants argue the case for it being done by a urology consultant for religious reasons because otherwise it is likely to be carried out by someone with limited medical knowledge which inflicts more pain and suffering on a child and indeed, could mean that said child may need to be referred to an actual urology consultant for corrective surgery. I can see their point too.
With regards to male circumcision opinions are divided. Personally I don't think it should be done for anything other than a medical reason and it is not done for religious reasons at my Trust (not sure about others but I think not). However, because it is not illegal, some urology consultants argue the case for it being done by a urology consultant for religious reasons because otherwise it is likely to be carried out by someone with limited medical knowledge which inflicts more pain and suffering on a child and indeed, could mean that said child may need to be referred to an actual urology consultant for corrective surgery. I can see their point too.
We can't have the situation where girls are routinely examined for the operation because their parents are of a certain religion or nationality; we must not discourage parents from registering the daughter with a GP nor seeking any medical help when their daughter needs it.
It is a very difficult situation.
It is a very difficult situation.
Is that officially decided HC? I know it was being floated about at some point. Then most likely disclosures will come via schools I would imagine and probably too late. Do you know what the situation is re holidays being taken in known countries undertaking FGM and whether girls will be examined before and after? I suspect this is unlikely too.
I can't see any reason for circumcising males, and we didn't. All the same, millions have had it done and you don't hear a peep out of them; there may be one or two who wish it hadn't been, and the occasional op that's gone wrong, but the numbers seem minuscule.
Banning it would seem a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - an attempt at imposing equality where nobody's asked for it, on behalf of people who aren't actually involved.
Banning it would seem a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - an attempt at imposing equality where nobody's asked for it, on behalf of people who aren't actually involved.
'Girls shouldn't be routinely examined- that's abusive itself!'
^^^ That's actually not really true Pixi. Paediatric examination (it's not a child protection examination, it's a paediatric assessment with a genital examiantion) is not invasive or scary or horrible and is extremely rarely internal. And isn't done if the child is screaming in protest.
^^^ That's actually not really true Pixi. Paediatric examination (it's not a child protection examination, it's a paediatric assessment with a genital examiantion) is not invasive or scary or horrible and is extremely rarely internal. And isn't done if the child is screaming in protest.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.