Ban without Prosecution, Conviction without Punishment, and Circumcision without Cutting: A Critical Appraisal of Anti-FGM Laws in Europe

Barbera, MaríaCaterina La

doi:10.1515/gj-2016-0012

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. We use inverted commas in recognition that as a term its political origins lie in colonial and missionary disgust of the native Other and to highlight the ongoing coloniality in its uneven application given that the WHO and national legislation around the globe excludes mutilating practices of female genitalia commonplace in the West such as cosmetic surgery (Boddy, 2020; Earp, 2022; Earp and Johnsdotter, 2020; La Barbera, 2017; Shahvisi, 2023). We use FC/FGM when not referring specifically to political discourse and ‘FGM-safeguarding’ to refer to statutory policy measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gendered and Racialised Epistemological Injustice in FGM-safeguarding

Carver

Pantazis

Karlsen

et al. 2023

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores FGM-safeguarding in the UK through a decolonial lens. Based on an analysis of the development of law and policy relating to ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ in the UK alongside data collected in focus groups with people of ethnic Somali heritage living in Bristol, we argue that the current legislation and policies, as well as their delivery, are steeped in colonial Othering. We demonstrate that legislative and policy approaches operate through a gendered and generational binary in which non-White mothers are othered as migrants (regardless of citizenship status) for whom anachronistic culture is deemed determinative, whilst their daughters are claimed as British. In this construction, ‘FGM’ operates as the symbolic marker that designates un/belonging: the uncircumcised girl is rescuable and claimed as ‘one of us’, whilst the circumcised mother is considered a mutilated political subject for whom belonging is foreclosed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 9. For further discussion of this legal contradiction in the UK see Dustin (2010), La Barbera (2017) and Shahvisi (2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gendered and Racialised Epistemological Injustice in FGM-safeguarding

Carver

Pantazis

Karlsen

et al. 2023

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These latter kinds of efforts are less likely to lead to (further) stigmatisation of alreadymarginalised minority groups, much less on an unequal basis with more established or less marginalised minority groups (for example, criminalisation of Muslims but not Jews for substantively similar practices). Moreover, evidence suggests that, at least in certain contexts, such 'softer' efforts may, in fact, be more successful (that is, in actually driving down rates of child genital cutting based on changing hearts and minds, rather than driving the cutting underground based on the threat of punishment) (see, generally, La Barbera, 2017).…”

Section: Legal Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Earp

2022

Global Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defenders of male circumcision increasingly argue that female ‘circumcision’ (cutting of the clitoral hood or labia) should be legally allowed in Western liberal democracies even when non-consensual. In his target article, Richard Shweder (2021) gives perhaps the most persuasive articulation of this argument to have so far appeared in the literature. In my own work, I argue that no person should be subjected to medically unnecessary genital cutting of any kind without their own informed consent, regardless of the sex characteristics with which they were born or the religious or cultural background of their parents. Professor Shweder and I agree that Western law and policy on child genital cutting is currently beset with cultural, religious and sex-based double standards. We disagree about what should be done about this. In this commentary, I argue that ‘legalising’ childhood FGC so as to bring it into line with current treatment of childhood MGC is not an acceptable solution to these problems. Instead, all medically unnecessary genital cutting of non-consenting persons should be opposed on moral and legal grounds and discouraged by all appropriate means. Key messages <ul><li>Under current legal norms, children with female-typical sex traits, male-typical sex traits, and intersex traits are treated fundamentally differently when it comes to protection from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>Defenders of non-consensual male circumcision increasingly argue that non-consensual female ‘circumcision’ should be legalized in Western liberal democracies</li> <li>Advocates of children’s rights counter that all non-consenting persons, irrespective of their sex-characteristics, should be protected from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>An emerging view is that non-consensual child genital cutting of any type is already contrary to criminal law, constituting physical assault and battery; parents cannot legally “consent” to the physical assault of their children</li> <li>Nevertheless, questions remain about the prudence of applying criminal sanctions (at least in the immediate future) to parents or providers who authorize or perform child genital cutting</li></ul>

show abstract

“…Legally, the tendency is questionable because it may lead to discriminatory treatment of different persons or groups based on constitutionally forbidden criteria, such as sex, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin (Coleman, 1998;Bond, 1999;Price, 1999;Davis, 2001;Mason, 2001;Somerville, 2004;Dustin, 2010;Johnsdotter and Essén, 2010;Askola, 2011;Adler, 2012;Merkel and Putzke, 2013;Fusaschi, 2015;Arora and Jacobs, 2016;Rogers, 2016Rogers, , 2022Svoboda et al, 2016;La Barbera, 2017;Shahvisi, 2017;Munzer, 2018;Notini and Earp, 2018;Pardy et al, 2019;Möller, 2020;Carpenter, 2021;Ahmadu and Kamau, 2022;Bootwala, 2022;Earp, 2022a;Rosman, 2022;Shweder, 2022b). And ethically, the tendency is questionable because, in practice, it privileges the customs of more powerful stakeholders (Gunning, 1991;Lewis, 1995;Obiora, 1996;Tangwa, 1999Tangwa, , 2004Toubia, 1999;Androus, 2004Androus, , 2013Chambers, 2004;Njambi, 2004;Bell, 2005;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Earp

2022

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.

show abstract

Ban without Prosecution, Conviction without Punishment, and Circumcision without Cutting: A Critical Appraisal of Anti-FGM Laws in Europe

Cited by 9 publications

References 79 publications

Gendered and Racialised Epistemological Injustice in FGM-safeguarding

Gendered and Racialised Epistemological Injustice in FGM-safeguarding

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About