I Banning feminist and masculinist sexism
"Hate
cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Martin Luther King junior
Sexist, gendered fighting against sexual mutilation
is contrary to all ethics, and, therefore, not very efficient.
Male violence against women does not justify the man-hating
feminism denounced by Emma Watson in the assembly of the United Nations. That feminism
pretends to fight excision whilst ignoring circumcision but making jealous ones
in the nursery is inadmissible.
So, sexist feminists lock themselves up into a
language formalism that systematically insist on "feminine sexual
mutilation" there where "sexual mutilation" must be said. Similarly,
they refuse to admit the ethnical term "circumcision" because it
would recall too much the masculine mutilation. But, in Africa, "circumcision"
means "purification", which is the common meaning of sexual
mutilation.
Against that sexism, Dr Adrienne Carmack wrote an
article entitled: "Female genital mutilation,"
"circumcision", "gender-conforming surgery": why the double standard?"[1],
and the ethicist Brian Earp: "Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male
circumcision: should there be a separate
ethical discourse?"[2].
The
most convincing proof of the necessary complementarity of the fights against
excision and circumcision has been given in Sierra Leone where the pro-excision collective madness backed
itself on the fact that the WHO does not ban circumcision. A fanatic of Bondo
affirms: "Type I (removal of foreskin only) is anatomically equivalent to
male circumcision and, like male circumcision, should not require
consent."[3]
II Questioning legal repression
"We must understand that they believe
they are doing right by (circumcising) their daughters. They do this out of
love not cruelty." Edna Adan, Somalia's ex-first lady[4]
Putting excisers in jail is as if,
abolishing the death penalty, the executioner was put in jail.
The law
is inefficient against sexual mutilation; hundreds of thousands of Jews died
for circumcision.
"The solution of repression,
proposed by the (Egyptian) state, led some people to practise excision
secretly." Aliaa Shams
The current position of
international organizations (World health organisation, Unicef, High commissioner for refugees and
United Nations human rights commission), about sexual mutilation is to invite
to its punishment (resolution 1247, item 3: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=16914&lang=en).
But repression is inefficient
- The great motivation
of feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is exactly the same: submitting the
individual, taken at an age when they are particularly vulnerable, by the
trauma of the definitive carving of repression of pleasure upon the body, and of
the terror inspired by a threat of castration and death rendered present for
life. Therefore, getting whole populations that practise circumcision daily to admit
that excision is a crime is unthinkable.
- So, in United
Kingdom hospitals, not to speak of Egypt or Sudan, near five hundred of cases
of excision are discovered each month[5]
without giving rise to a single conviction. Albeit, from her legal maturity on,
an excised woman has 20 years to denounce the crime, none of them ever
denounces her parents to the authorities; they would be thrown into prison and
she would exclude herself from her community.
And above all, the justice system applies
the law in a discriminatory way:
- on the one hand, sexual
mutilation must be considered both as a societal and trans-generational Stockholm syndrome (cf. " Sexual mutilation, an aggravated-because collective
Stockholm syndrome") and, still more seriously, as a
collective and transgenerational Münchhausen syndrome by proxy (cf. " Sexual mutilation, a transgenerational and collective
Münchhausen syndrome by proxy"). Those fearsome psychiatric
conditions were those of the worshippers of Cybele and of the Skoptzis, who
practised total castration. Today, they still strike the Hidjas of India. Their
victims/perpetrators must very obviously be considered irresponsible. So,
article 122-2 of the Criminal Code must be applied:
"The person who has acted under the
influence of a strength or a constraint which they could not withstand is not
criminally responsible."
- on the other hand, sexual
mutilation is performed without any intent to harm and article 121-3 of the
Criminal code applies:
"There is no crime or misdemeanour
without the intent to commit it."
But through considering cultural tradition as a
mere mitigating circumstance, the justice of
Western inspiration system assumes with arrogance that thousand-year-old cultural
customs would be performed with malicious intent. That hypocritical pretext for clearing one's
conscience does not allow violating the criminal law through circumventing the
two major principles here above mentioned. It conceals discrimination; putting mutilators in jail is culturalo-centrism, a racism
of "Uncle Tom's cabin". Superbly despising primitive cultures, that patronizing,
and even racist culturalo-centrism is inadmissible. No one would think of blaming
Muslim or Jewish parents for having the intention of harming their boys by
circumcision. Pronouncing a different judgement for girls, the justice system is
sexist.
The criminal law being inapplicable and
counter-productive, the justice system should only condemn to substantial civil damage, as it happened in
the decision that temporarily put an end to circumcision in Germany in 2012.
That is all the more justified that the cut off clitorises are used to make
creams assumed to provide health and wealth that are sold on the black market[6].
However, after having
been lectured by civil courts about the discriminatory character of their
practice, repeat offenders should be brought before criminal courts under the
charge of discrimination against humanity.
The only efficient tool against sexual
mutilation is routine screening, which has been adopted by Spain. Without
it, the fight will remain wishful thinking. It involves systematic medical school
examinations, for all children, from the beginning to the end of university. It
will enable the denunciation of trespassers. After a few sentences of damages to the victims, accompanied by wide
media coverage, the financial risk will be so high that it will be the end of
excision.
III Fighting a double discrimination:
1) Suffered
discrimination: the handicaps imposed on minors
Sexual mutilation
creates physiological and sexual disabilities. A wild betrayal of the innocence
of childhood, it also creates mental disabilities. The Parliamentary assembly
of the Council of Europe emphasized the phenomenon in its 1st October 2013
resolution ("Children’s right to physical
integrity"),
voted by a large majority even before an important consultation of specialists
of circumcision occurred in January 2014 (http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=4851&lang=2&cat=):
"The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a
category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to
present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the
contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for
religious reasons,…"
The rapporteur of the
assembly answered Israeli criticisms (conflation of excision and circumcision) identical
to the leitmotiv of the man-hating feminist denounced by Emma Watson: "We
did mention different categories of violation of the physical integrity of children,
which we, however, very clearly distinguished and did not mix up in any
way.", which clearly means that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation were
treated and condemned separately (http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=4692&lang=2&cat=).
Moreover, in France, June
14 2013 in the Sorbonne, the chairperson of the Commission nationale
consultative des droits de l’homme declared that she would mention that female
and male sexual mutilation is discriminatory in her upcoming report to
the President of the republic.
But if, published the
same day, her "Discours de la présidente" ("La
CNCDH réaffirme son soutien à la lutte contre l’excision") confirmed that
"… excision is a discriminatory practice", not only is it at the sole
sense of endured discrimination (disabilities), but, also, it no longer
mentioned circumcision, as well as the 28 November 2013 "Avis
sur les mutilations sexuelles féminines" of the CNCDH. And the latter does not even mention
discrimination any more. It seems that the outcry of Muslim and Jewish
religious caused by the above-mentioned resolution of the PACE deterred Mrs
Lazerges to keep her word. In other
words, electoral politics obliging, the religious lay down the law against
human rights.
2) Discrimination
exercised upon the rest of humanity: an allegedly moral self-discrimination
In
writing, Mrs
Lazerges limited herself to suffured
discrimination. But, since mutilators derive an illusory glory and an arrogant
claim of moral superiority from it, there is also exercised discrimination upon the "non-mutilated" of the
community or of neighbouring cultures. The surgically imposed discrimination of
sexual mutilation closes the group upon itself and generates exclusion, and even
mutual xenophobia.
IV Conclusion: the right to sexual pleasure
against moral and cultural mutilation
"At night, before
bedtime, they all had to masturbate, in order well to know what they were going
to lose…" Gérard Zwang, preface to "The drama of excision" by
Dore-Miloch L.
"Sexual acts were
painful to her because no lubrication was possible." Serenade Chafik about
her excised mother
Destroying the
specific organs for autosexuality, and especially the
feminine erectile organ: the female phallus, sexual mutilation outlaws sexual pleasure
and savagely betrays the innocence of childhood.
The 14 June 2013
"Discours de la présidente" and the resolution of the PACE concerned
the right to physical integrity: the damages caused by sexual mutilation. They said
nothing of the right to sexual pleasure, the denial of which, a powerful means
of submission of the individual, is one of the main goals of sexual mutilation;
it grants adult status only at the price of seriously undermining pleasure with
man (A preliminary poll: 83% of circumcised
men ignore little orgasms in series, 88% of intact men enjoy them!) and the most often replacing
it by pain with woman.
Sexual mutilation is the
expression of a fierce puritanical moral order. It teaches the youth the law of
might, violence, and an allegedly moral superiority that is a powerful factor
of discrimination and exclusion. Taking action against sexual mutilation must denounce
that discriminatory nature, worse than everyday racism; it is some Gobineau implemented
by Mengele, power ten racism. It is high time to defend the child against all
violence: humiliations, slaps, smacks, beatings and mutilations. For that,
concrete measures must be taken in order to force parents to respect the basic
rights of their children: the right to the body and its twin: the right to
pleasure.
In that field, male
minors have as much right as female minors to the respect for their specific
organ for autosexuality. Condemning excision alone is sexist, hypocritical, and
all the less efficient that excision only exists in circumcising countries.
Sexual mutilation
treats children and adolescents like objects. Paternalistic criminal penalties
against excision are an avatar of it; through imprisoning mutilators, they shut
communities upon themselves and forbid the solving of the issue. So, defenders
of the rights of the child should be aware of the dark side that may remain
within themselves, namely the verbal and mental sexual mutilation that
represses and disregards autosexuality. That taboo is rampant across the globe,
carried on by language itself, since "turbation" refers to "trouble"
and "turpitude". So far, that more or less conscious repression has
not allowed lawyers to formulate the right to sexual pleasure. It is the deep
motivation of the abject, on the part of would-be-mothers, sexist feminism; it
claims the right to physical integrity for girls (including a simple prick of
the clitoris) without worrying about the destruction of an important erogenous
zone for boys.
That is not a reason
to discriminate the victims of sexual mutilation who intend to perpetuate it in
return; criminal law must repress them only because they discriminate the communities
and the human community itself.
RELATED ARTICLE
[1] Carmack A. Female genital
mutilation,” “circumcision,” “gender-conforming surgery”: why the double
standard? http://adriennecarmack.com/female-genital-mutilation-circumcision-gender-conforming-surgery-why-the-double-standard/
[2] Earp B. Female genital
mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical dicourse?
https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse
[3] Fuambai Sia Ahmadu. FGM in
Sierra Leone - to ban or not to ban: a rejoinder. http://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/?p=13572
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/edna-adan-with-my-army-of-midwives-fewer-girls-will-go-through-fgm?CMP=twt_gu
[5] Brown L. The first ever
FGM figures show nearly 6,000 new cases in England. BBC Newsbeat, July 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36838870/the-first-ever-fgm-figures-show-nearly-6000-new-cases-in-england
[6]
http://www.maliweb.net/sante/mutilations-genitales-feminines-mali-clitoris-dor-occulte-exciseuses-1948932.html
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire