Tuesday, 25 April 2017

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

The right way

From a London Assembly press release:

Recommendations include:

• The Mayor must take a visible lead in tackling FGM. The delivery of the Police and Crime Plan must demonstrate this commitment and drive a multi-agency response to FGM.

• A pan-London campaign to raise awareness of the real dangers of FGM, signposting women and girls to the support they require.

• Communities affected by FGM should be engaged to raise awareness, strengthen community-based prevention work and provide training for professionals.

• The Mayor must support the provision of bespoke training for London’s frontline practitioners.

• Support should be given to the police, health, social care and education services, voluntary organisations and communities.


The wrong way

From Sky News:

Mandatory checks are already law in France, which has had far greater success prosecuting FGM cases. Although it has been illegal in the UK since 1987, there have been no successful prosecutions.

Ms Parker said: "All these measures to combat this despicable crime are already law in France, a country that has a far, far better record than us on FGM. Not only have they proven effective both in protecting girls in France from FGM, they also help provide essential evidence to mount prosecutions where FGM has taken place. It is time the United Kingdom caught up."

24 comments:

paulc156 said...

Similar to the old days when witches were the target and
witch-finders,(proto-UKIP'ers)would scour the country forcibly examining girls to see visible signs of fornication with the devil.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PC, do you think the right way to do this is the French way, which actually identifies and punishes, or the PC lefties ineffectual hand wringing?

John Tee said...

Of relevance?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/fgm-should-not-prosecuted-police-force-says-claims-best-course/

Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, that's the right way of upholding the law and respect for the law. You're not getting how to do political correctness, are you?

Ralph Musgrave said...

Watch it folks: criticizing FGM could be construed as "inciting hatred" of Muslims.

By the same token, I'm against criticizing the Holocaust, as that might "incite hatred" of Nazis.

Yours, fully paid up member of the Loony Left.

Mark Wadsworth said...

RM, correct on the first part but not on the second.

paulc156 said...

MW. The hand wringing lefty in me wonders whether France has got more wrong than right with regards it's ethnic communities...The libertarian in me can't escape that vision of witch-hunts from the 17thC.

Contact YPP said...

PC, would you happily repeal the law against FGM? What if some white parents happily chopped up their little girl's fanny? Would the libertarian part of you be happy with that? FFS.

Bayard said...

Both left and right like "political correctness". The politically correct left like it because it gives them an opportunity to tell other people how to behave. The right like it because it gives them a chance to demonise and ridicule the left, tarring them all with the same brush and, at the same time, to pour scorn on genuine attempts to trreat all people equally.

Political correctness will always be with us.

paulc156 said...

YPP. Let the law stand or strengthen it if needs be. Supply more resources if that's required in order to prevent FGM. The thought of snatch squads raiding homes across the land, or pouncing on those returning from summer holidays in order to carry out invasive physical examinations on young girls, without consent, might be considered a bit Orwellian by 'libertarian' inclined sites, but not this one apparently. Perhaps you can get appointed as FGM finder-general?

Mark Wadsworth said...

PC, wtf does "more resources" mean? We've been doing that for 30 years with precisely zero effect. Either you enforce a law properly if it's a good law or you repeal it if it's a bad law

L fairfax said...

Diane Abbott had a similar idea 3 years ago - no prosecutions in 30 years seems very ineffective - unless there has been no crime which is unlikely.

paulc156 said...

MW. Sometimes laws aren't enforced for a variety of reasons. If basically we know that thousands of cases are being reported by health authorities, that means the law is working to a large extent. Since we already know of thousands of these cases we don't need to send the 'snatch' squads round to terrify the kids (the small percentage of under 18's) who have already been abused and possibly traumatised by FGM nor those some enterprising 'bureaucrats'/FGMfinders might think prime suspects. Certain police forces have said they think prosecutions aren't appropriate in the vast majority of cases. They think education of parents and young adults is the best route. In any case, that fuckwit currently fronting UKIP probably knows all this but figures that in today's feverish climate UKIP can pick up a few extra votes in the sort of areas where immigration is the major concern of voters... voters who probably know none of this because that would entail a tiny bit of investigation. Still find it bizarre that on a site claimed to be libertarian, proposing that such draconian powers be handed to the state should be met with such equanimity let alone enthusiasm.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PC, if you think the law which makes FGM a criminal offence should be repealed, then say so. Of course inspections are ghastly, but perhaps the threat will be sufficient to deter it?

Also if some weird white English couple did this to their daughterwould you be as lenient on them? Try and take race or religion out of the equation for once.

Bayard said...

"Mandatory checks are already law in France,"

Once you accept the reality of the Nanny State, then it isn't too gross an intrusion into people's liberties to require parents to have their children checked over by a GP once a year. This doesn't have to be aimed at any particular group, it could apply to everyone. So you can strike the position of FGM-finder General off the vacancies list.

However, I doubt anyone would take up this idea, because it's fairly obvious that most of the pressure behind dealing with FGM is basically supplied by the neo-crusaders. They simply want to harry Muslims in the same way as the Tories want to harry the poor under the guise of "austerity". After all, where are the cries of outrage about MGM?

paulc156 said...

B. Oh you're right. Were an intimate examination of everyone's kids mandated there would be a cry so loud, no government would dare. And for sure most people aren't even libertarians, even the few who know what it means. Far more think the state should do everything, encourage this that and the other, think up new taxes and sort out the economy before tea time. This proposal only gets 'some' support because the subjects are deemed fair game by many.

I didn't mention MGM because really it's not a great analogy. It doesn't ruin your sex life for one and is less likely to lead to medical complications. I think the royal males have all had it done so you could argue it's patriotic?! Though frankly if more people knew just what happens in the religious circumcisions they would probably be raising a few eyebrows.

DBC Reed said...

The most effective way of dealing with this remains: encouraging people living here to do what the fuck they like and to escape parental and traditional pressure by disappearing into murky areas of town to live in cheap flats and houses and carry on regardless.
With a large number of Muslim-lite libertines,gays, trannies and the other 57 varieties of loose living, FGM is likely to die out.The complete lack of escape from the parental home and home town because of high rents and house prices has an effect on personal life as well as the economy.Low rents/low life/low morals/liberty.

Bayard said...

"I didn't mention MGM because really it's not a great analogy. It doesn't ruin your sex life for one and is less likely to lead to medical complications."

Yes, but it still involves cutting bits off the private parts of children who have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that it is as bad as FGM, but there is AFAIAA, not even any murmuring against the practice. There's more fuss about the halal slaughter of animals.

paulc156 said...

No. You won't hear a peep because down that road lies the charge of anti-semitism and that's too big a deal.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PC and B, jeez, can you try and get a bit of perspective?

1. Circumcision of boys is a silly anachronism, but it does not cause lifelong discomfort etc.

2. And please stop being so bloody PC. I am a proper left-libertarian, I believe in women's equality, gay marriage, rights of kids to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of religion (so no killing apostates or children who marry out of the parents' religion), I'm against the death penalty, corporal punishment and terrorism, child sexual exploitation, I'm in favour of boozing and smoking.

Muslims are on the whole diametrically opposed on all these issues. Don't call me a racist I am a left libertarian and entirely consistent.

UKIP on the other hand are against e.g. gay marriage but also against Islam, that is probably a typical right wing approach and pretty hypocritical.

3. For the third time, what would your view be if there were white English religions with millions of adherents where a measurable minority mutilated their own daughter's genitals, possibly thousands of cases a year?

4. I think you will find that proper feminists and GFGM victims are, on the whole, pretty much against FGM as well.

5. There is such a thing as herd immunity. I'm happy for my kids to have jabs when they are little even if this also improves the chances of non-innoculated kids getting those diseases.

Similarly, if my little girl had to go for an embarrassing check up every time she came back from a holiday in a country where they do FGM (where I have no intention of taking her as it happens), then that is a small price worth paying if it can discourage thousands of parents - of whatever religion or country of origin not to mutilate their daughters' fannies.

6. The only flaw in the plan I can see is that parents who do FGM will soon find a compliant corrupt GP who will sign off their daughters as unmolested, we know that there are doctors IN THE UK who have carried this out, but got let off on some technicality.

pen seive said...

Circumcision of boys was less a religious matter than a hygenic one. Living in the desert, having sand, and dirt, caught inside the foreskin, could lead to disease and possibly death. The removal of the excess skin at the tip of the penis was a form of prevention. Being superstitious folk, it very quickly turned into a religiousr rite. That it continues today is down to the tunnel visioned outlook of the Jewish and Islamic communities.
Female genital mutilation is as a result of sexually inadequates (usually Muslims) who find that. by denying their females the right to enjoy sexual congress and, in fact, making it more painful, appeases their pathetic mantra of males being superior beings (it is only recently that the Wahabis of Saudia Arabia have acknowledged that women are human beings).
As a (now retired) Police officer, I investigated quite a few incidents of FGM and, when I felt it necessary, have arrested several members of a family, usually Islamic, on suspicion of Grevious Bodily Harm. The problems were that the victims were rarely abale to give evidence due to their age and their family would bond together to offer no evidence, despite the fact the person carrying out this savage maiming, usually the grandmother, was herself, a victim of FGM.
I very quickly discovered that senior Police officers, fearful of forfeiting their next promotion, would do little to assist, while the Imam sponsored communities would band together to pay for the best legal advice available. CPS, bound by budgets and success tables, would quickly cave in and it was either "not enough evidence to prosecute" or "not in the public interest".
One of the reasons I retired prematurely was what I considered state sponsored, or lack of prevention of, mutilation of innocent females whose only crime was to be born into a muslim family.
I have several muslim friends, and was an usher at the wedding of one, yet I would not allow a daughter, or granddaughter of mine, to marry into a muslim community. It would be the same as allowing them to become scientologists, or davidians, or moonies, or similar brainwashing cults (I will not allow them the privilege of giving a capital letter to their cults names).

Mark Wadsworth said...

PS, ta for depressing anecdotal evidence.

Bayard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bayard said...

"1. Circumcision of boys is a silly anachronism, but it does not cause lifelong discomfort etc."

Just because something is worse than something else, doesn't make that something else not bad. I'm not saying circumcision should be banned, I'm just saying that if people are objecting to FGM simply because it's an unpleasant an unnecessary practice, they should at least be saying something against circumcision, which is also unnecessary and unpleasant, albeit not to the same degree.

"And please stop being so bloody PC"

If I was being PC, I wouldn't raise the subject of circumcision, because white males are definitely right at the bottom in the victimhood poker pack. In any case what's so PC about suggesting everyone has to take their children to the doctor for an yearly check-up?(although the guilty parties will, as you point out, simply get a "dodgy MOT" for their daughters.)

The fact that a lot of Muslims are repressive misogynists doesn't alter the fact that much of the animus behind the campaign to get rid of FGM is because it's mainly Muslims who do it. It's called doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Beliefs are not responsible for the people who espouse them, e.g. despite the Bremoaners trumpeting in the Graun et al, the fact that a large number of Leave voters were motivated by xenophobia, if not stupid racism, makes absolutely no difference to the rights and wrongs of the case for Britain leaving the EU.

PS, It is hardly surprising that the families concerned would not wish to give evidence against their own members. I am slightly surprised that, given, the physical evidence available, that the lack of oral evidence was considered such a barrier. I mean they couldn't really claim she'd walked into a door, could they? It seems to me from what you say that the lack of prosecutions is nothing to do with not adopting heavy handed French ways of dealing with the problem, but simply a lack of a desire by the Establishment to do anything about it.