mercredi 4 janvier 2017

The strategy against sexual mutilation: neither sexism nor repression but education and damages

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:

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 (

"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 (

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.


[1] Carmack A. 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?
[3] Fuambai Sia Ahmadu. FGM in Sierra Leone - to ban or not to ban: a rejoinder.
[5] Brown L. The first ever FGM figures show nearly 6,000 new cases in England. BBC Newsbeat, July 2016.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire