Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The ideological quagmire that is female circumcision

By Liz Conor - posted Tuesday, 1 August 2006


I’m acutely aware that I risk the charge of paternalism by saying I am one of the Australian women, identified early on in the defection of the Sierra Leone women by a Sydney refugee advocate, that supports their application for asylum on the grounds that they seek protection from female genital mutilation.

I’m also aware that within Howard’s culture wars multiculturalism and expressions of cultural difference are under direct attack by prominent commentators and politicians, indeed they can barely be thought about outside an assimilatory framework.

In addition gender equality has been cynically appropriated to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, “border protection” and Howard’s attempted amendments to the Immigration Act. This is surely the worst of all times to raise this complex and unresolved issue. However, I feel more ethically compromised being silent in the face of the Sierra Leone women’s claims for asylum.

Advertisement

The specific context presented to Australian women by the plight of these young women requires that we voice our support, and advocate that genital mutilation be unequivocally considered a gross violation of their human rights by our immigration department and considered foremost in their application for refugee status.

I think we are called to respond particularly by the proven record of our immigration department in disregarding the human rights of refugee applicants and repatriating asylum seekers regardless of their safety.

In 1998 a pregnant Chinese woman seeking protection from forced abortion was repatriated at 38 weeks. She begged to either be induced or to wait two weeks so that she could carry her baby back in her arms. The immigration department refused and guaranteed that she would be met at the airport and remain safe. No one was there to meet her and she was taken from her home by Chinese officials and the baby was carved out of her. Knowing our immigration department’s complicity in human rights violations places a certain obligation on speaking out in support of the Sierra Leone young women.

The fact that these women are claiming asylum status on the grounds of their exposure to genital mutilation makes it unavoidable to take a position on genital mutilation. It seems to me that the silence that surrounded their grounds for refugee status illustrates that when it comes to female genital mutilation western feminists have either taken a position against it, and been roundly condemned as paternalistic, or yielded to the ethical exemption created by distance to not take a position.

We could employ a lot of careful and disingenuous language to step around this incontrovertible fact: in the instance of female genital mutilation, the values enshrined by human rights affords girls better protection against a traditional practice that is forced; causes severe pain, trauma and shock, risks exposure to HIV and blood-borne diseases; risks death by infection and haemorrhaging; causes ongoing trauma when urinating, menstruating, having intercourse and giving birth; and increases infertility and infant mortality.

It needs to argued whether this is a western value given first, the medical interventions practiced on western women and girls in the name of beauty and efficient birthing and given second, that there are many peoples, indigenous and otherwise, who do not practice female genital mutilation and given third, that many women have left their communities and countries to spare their daughters the ordeal of, in the most extreme cases, effectively having their genitals removed without anaesthetic.

Advertisement

The wishes of the Sierra Leone teenagers simply take precedence over the complex moral and legal ambiguity that this issue entails. Of course we need to continue the discussion about that ambiguity, and be clear about how being white and western positions us in the debate. But to put that discussion before the needs of these young women, to the extent that we become unwilling to voice our support to them and respond to their application for asylum here with silence is to mistake analysis and theorising for taking a position.

In looking at the harm caused by infibulation, scholar Catherine Annas speaks with unscholarly fervour, “When the effects of female genital mutilation are honestly faced, nothing can justify it. Not culture. Not tradition. Not parental rights. Nothing.” I would add another qualification, one that strips ambiguity from the issue.

They are children.

Children all over the world are individuals unaware of their rights and unable to organise around the advocacy of those rights. While we ought to know from globally recurring policies of child removal from indigenous communities that children are not the property of the state, they are neither the property of either their parents or their cultures to the extent that the violation of their human rights can be justified. They are entitled to protection from the physical pain and shock, trauma, medical harm and suffering caused by female genital mutilation.

No mother or father or community, no religion or traditions, no state or law, nothing and no one owns a child to the extent that the violation of their human rights are justified, or the advocacy of their rights silenced. The suffering of these children is a stand alone ethical instance into which no other consideration or qualification should intervene. No one should conscionably discourage those who want to advocate for their protection from this procedure. Speaking positions are not a priority, the children's protection is, and everyone should participate in that advocacy first and foremost by assisting the women in those communities where female genital mutilation occurs who are already fighting this practice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

58 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Liz Conor is a research fellow in the Department of Culture and Communications at the University of Melbourne. Read her blog Liz Conor: Comment and Critique here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Liz Conor

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Liz Conor
Article Tools
Comment 58 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy