The “barbaric” practice of FGM (female genital mutilation)

God’s vengeance on Canadian logic in its values and human rights abroad and at home 

By Dogan Akman

The article of Christine Douglass-Williams published on the August 8 inst. issue of Israpundit titled What is Canada Trying to Accomplish in Standing Against Saudi Arabia sets out a number of facts to document the Liberal government’s inconsistent utterances and actions concerning Islamic cum Saudi Arabian and Canadian sets of values both abroad and on the home front.

In the current spat between the two countries, there is almost unanimous agreement that the Liberal government’s condemnation of the arrest of two activist Saudi sisters in the Kingdom was in large measure motivated by the Prime Minister’s feminist agenda and his compulsive need to impress the Western world that Canada is invariably on the right side of issues concerning values and human rights.

The dispute was triggered by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s, bizarre way of raising a very sensitive issue with the Kingdom when she twittered:

“Canada is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in #Saudi Arabia including Samar Banawi. We urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release them and all other peaceful #human rights activists.”

An honourable concern for civil rights wrapped in a lèse-majesté, if there ever was one.

As to be expected, Saudi Arabia’s response was fast, furious and resulted in the imposition of a number of sanctions including economic ones. Nevertheless, in their inimitable generosity, the Saudis hastened to assure Canada that the Kingdom will continue supply it with its oil requirement, and with their inimitable sense of humour also declared that “Canada is the world’s worst oppressor of women.”

In response to the Saudis’ expulsion of the Canadian Ambassador, Minister Freeland said:”…Canada will always stand up for the protection of human rights, including women’s rights and freedom of expression around the world. We will never hesitate to promote these values and we believe that this dialogue is critical to international diplomacy…Canada will continue to advocate human rights and for brave women and men who push for these fundamental rights around the world.”

For his part, the Prime Minister, instead of backing off, picked up where his Minister left off to declare:   ” Canadians have always expected our government to speak strongly, firmly clearly and politely about the need to respect human rights at home and around the world…We will continue to stand up for Canadian values and indeed for universal values and human rights at any occasion.” (Italics mine)

On the plain reading of the article of Douglass-Williams article, substantiated by the writings of a number of Canadian Muslim writers, if, as the Prime Minister claims, Canadians have always expected his government, or for that matter all Canadian governments, to do as he did in this instance, clearly neither he nor his government or the preceding governments always heeded and fulfilled this expectation, as illustrated by his handling of the Chinese sensitivities, most recently concerning their harsh treatment of the Uyghur, not to mention the breaches of the values and human rights, among others, by Hamas, the P.A., Turkey (a NATO ally) , and ironically a previous breach by the Saudis.

This state affairs, brings me to the question as to whether, on the home front, Mr. Trudeau and his Ministers practice the same values and pay the same respect to the sanctity of the human rights he and his Minister profess abroad ,as Canadians expect him to do in connection with the  FGM  problem?

In an article published in April, 2015, Dr. Corinne Packer and her colleagues at the Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine of the University of Ottawa, describe FMG as follows: “[FMG] involves the cutting or removal of a girl’s genitals and reconfiguration of the genital area. In the most extreme cases, a girl’s entire labia and clitoris are cut off. At a minimum, this practice interferes with the female experience of sexual intercourse and childbirth. The physical, psychological, sexual and socially harmful effects of [FGM] have been well-documented, including the risk of death to infants and girls… The procedure is conducted, on girls between infancy and age 15”.

The procedure is performed by some doctors, without medical justification, and in most instances by persons without any medical training, and judging from a seizure made by Canadian customs officials in 2001, often enough with  tools which are not maintained in proper sanitary conditions.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, some of the reasons used to justify FGM are: a) To repair female genitalia which some communities consider to be dirty and ugly; b) To initiate a girl into womanhood in keeping with the community’s cultural heritage; c) To control a woman’s sexuality; d) To ensure virginity before marriage and fidelity afterwards, and e) To increase male sexual pleasure. Although FGM is not endorsed by either Islam or Christianity, religious doctrines are often professed and invoked to justify the practice.

Although legislation banning FGM has been enacted in the majority of African countries, obviously the legislation does not appear to have had the intended deterrent effect on the practice which is also known to exist in some Middle-eastern countries and in those further east, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Prior to 1997, under the Canadian Criminal Code, FGM was classified as an offence under the generic heading of aggravated assault. By 1996, the Canadian government  having become increasingly aware of and concerned with the existence of the practice in the country and proceeded to amend the Criminal Code to address the gravity of problem. In 1997, the Parliament of Canada passed an amendment to the Criminal Code which the Preamble, inter alia, reads: WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the practice of female genital mutilation and in particular where that practice involves children; expressly prohibits all forms of genital mutilation in Canada.

Dr. Packer et al., summarised the amendment as follows: “The amendment [describes] the forms of FGM as `wounds’ or `maims’ and includes ‘to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person. No consent to female genital mutilation is valid except where a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or (b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.”

In 2011, the FGM problem again came to the fore of Canadians’ socio-cultural and political consciousness, and more importantly became a “political football” when the then governing Conservative Party revised the Citizenship Study Guide (“the Guide”) supplied to immigrants to help them prepare for their citizenship examination and inserted the following paragraph:  In Canada, men and women are equal under the law.  Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings’, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under the law.”

At the time and since then, there has been no doubt that the paragraph was directed primarily to Muslim Canadians, residents, immigrants and refugees

Justin Trudeau, then a rookie Liberal member of Parliament, sitting on the opposition benches and member of the party’s “shadow cabinet” ,  tasked to deal with the government’s refugee, immigration and citizenship policies and practices, took strong exception to the wording of the paragraph.

Trudeau objected to the wording of the paragraph charged that the government should have a) called all violence against women “absolutely unacceptable” and b) made “a better attempt at responsible neutrality”. (Italics mine) Later, Trudeau retracted his comments and apologised publicly, presumably after being chastened by the public outrage caused by his comments and, more importantly, by the outrage of the feminist movement, the respect for and promotion of its ideals and goals were a key plank of his election platform and now is a critically important feature of his public policies at home and abroad.  Adopting an apologetic posture, he is reported to have said:” I want to make clear that I think the acts described are heinous, barbaric acts that are totally unacceptable in our society” , although there appears to be some discrepancy in the news reports as to whether he used the word “barbaric” or refused to do so.

I think it is generally accepted that he did so, among other reasons as part of his electoral strategy having regard to the importance of the Muslim vote in his own electoral riding as well as in many other federal (as well as province) ridings both in Quebec and Ontario that subsequently supplied him with good many seats in the 2015 general election and contributed to his electoral victory.

By 2016, the Prime Minister, inevitably, turned his attention to the wording of the troublesome paragraph.

 The problem he saw, placed Trudeau between the proverbial rock and not one but many hard places, as the solution to it must; a) reconcile Canadian values, human rights and  the domestic public opinion that abhor the “barbaric” matters described in the paragraph, with the values and culture of some segments of the Muslim community, and especially those originating from countries where FGM is widely practiced; b) in turn, he must reconcile his response to  the latter’s position with his  pro-active feminist policies as well as with the values, policies and practices of some of the European Union countries, the U.S, the U.K, Australia and New Zealand , the declarations of the U.N and  reckon with the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women which in turn contradict  the  professed religious  grounds and values of the countries whose inhabitants practice FGM  and which contribute  to Canada’s supply of immigrants and refugees.

Hence, in the absence of a clever way out of the conundrum, the problem would translate into a zero-sum game between that segment of the Canadian society that consider the practice of FGM to be right and proper and want to carry on with it, and the rest, that considers it barbaric and demands that the practice be done away with; the kind of game that politicians both in and out of government generally abhor.

In response, Mr. Trudeau resorted to three time-honoured stratagems in Canadian politics when the government is faced with a seemingly insoluble political problem: first, to delay the final decision for as long as possible by setting up a Royal Commission or a study group of some sort to examine the problem and to make recommendations. He did one better, or he thought he did so when he assigned his Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (IRC) to form a study group and submit his recommendations to him; second, to  smother the issue with money to finance  projects to give the impression that something is being done  to address the problem, and c) a Cabinet shuffle..

The way Trudeau handled the first stratagem turned out to be not as clever as he had thought.  The first interim draft of the new citizenship guide he received in 2016 omitted the references to barbaric cultural practices including FGM, as being against the law. Clearly, the formulation did not sit well with the feminist Prime Minister.

In January 2017, he resorted to the third stratagem when he appointed Ahmed D. Hussen as his Minister of IRC. Hussen arrived in Canada as a lone Somali refugee youngster and made it good. This appointment in turn brought its own potential conflicts.

For example, a UNICEF report published in 2013 where the estimated prevalence of FGM in girls and women among just five African countries, are: 98% in Somalia, 91% in Egypt, 89% in Eritrea and 88% in Sierra Leone.   figures place Minister Hussen in a quandary of his own, vis-a vis this Somalian constituency as well as with a segment of the Muslim immigrants.

Further, if the problem could not be resolved in a manner that minimally appeases the pro-FGM constituency, Mr. Hussen stands the  risks being branded as a traitor  by a particular segment of the Muslim community and lose face with the Somali  and  the other members of his community at large who expect him to stand up to defend and protect the community’s  honour, cultural inheritance, traditional practices, and in some cases, the non-existing but professed religious justification of the practice.

As matters now stand, Mr. Hussen assigned his departmental officials to work on developing, in bureaucratic jargon, a “fully refresh” Guide.  the drafting of which was reasonably expected to take at most one year to finalise, remains a work in progress with no end in sight. Since the next federal election is scheduled for 2019, the Guide may not see the light of day until after the election.

The second stratagem which so far involved the financing of at least one study on FMG is faring better. For example, in 2017 the Federal Department of Justice awarded $350,000 to a Quebec organisation working on, of all things, to “raise awareness around FGM”. On the whole, such studies do not provide much, if anything, fit for newspaper headlines. Just as importantly, the organisations that receive or stand a fair chance to receive such financing are unlikely to bite the hand that will feed them.

In June of 2017, the government also set aside $101 million for a strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence, and $150 million over five years to be given to local women’s organizations. (Italics mine)

In July 2017, the investigation conducted by a major Toronto daily revealed that Canadian girls are being sent abroad to undergo FGM. In response, the Minister of Status of Woman, who happens to be a Muslim and the Minister of International Development, issued a joint statement in which they stated “… [FGM] is an abhorrent and unacceptable practice. It is one of the most severe violations of the human rights of women and girls…Canada’s government is committed to addressing [it] both at home and abroad.” In speaking to the journalists, the Ministers indicated that Canada “has and will continue to make efforts to prevent and address FGM.” (Italics mine)

 Since prevention is one way to address the problem, the statement begs the question as to how does the government propose to achieve that. The Ministers’ implicit reply to these questions tells the Canadian FGM story to date: to continue to make “efforts”. A reply that singularly lacks substance, focus and drive to deal with the problem.

In the meantime, the Conservative Party now in opposition keeps asking both Mr. Hussen and the Prime Minister whether or not the proposed new Guide will retain the reference to the FGM as a crime.

Despite the effluxion of close to two years spent in the preparation of the Guide, Mr. Hussen’s quasi-standard reply to this question has been that he is “in consultation”. For his part, the Prime Minister, has yet to give a direct answer.

For example, in December 2017, he responded to a similar question by saying that “he personally brought up this issue during a visit to Liberia …challenging local leaders and governments to step up on the fight against FGM… We will continue to lead pushing for an end to these barbaric practices of [FGM]   everywhere around the world. This is something…and here in Canada, we take very seriously.” The reference to Canada, in reprise, betrays the government’s avowed intentions, feeble as these are.

Trudeau the vocal feminist on the world stage and at home, is having an awful problem trying to reconcile  the moral, medical, socio-cultural and legal imperatives to fight barbaric practices in Canada with his bizarre notion of multiculturalism which  considers Islam to be an operative multicultural variable that seemingly permits newcomers to invoke fictitious religious  doctrine and practice their cultural beliefs and traditions from the old country that  breach fundamental Canadian and western values and human rights.

In February 2018, Canada’s Minister of International Development announced that the government will spend $3 million to help stamp out female genital mutilation (FGM) in a particular region of the West African country of Benin which has a very high rate of FGM. The announcement was made to coincide with the International Day for Zero Toleration on FGM. In making the announcement, the Minister described the practice of to FGM as: “… really   a matter of belief and cultural norm, so we have to have this conversation with mothers, grandmothers, religious and traditional leaders, to end this practice.

This project is expected to help 57,000 young girls, as well female survivors of sexual violence, and leaders from civil society, and health and education professionals. According to the Minister, Canada is also engaging with other countries, UN organizations and non-government groups to advocate and take action to eliminate this practice. (Italics mine) This project is, and the subsequent ones will be, financed as part of the Liberal government’s $650 million feminist international assistance program.  The funds allocated to FGM will be used to conduct research into the extent of the practice and why it persists. It will also be used to develop educational workshops and to support health and educational professionals working on intervention, and other similar projects will follow.

At all events, to the extent the research is conducted in specific regions of African and in countries comprising the Middle-East and in the east beyond, it is self-evident that due to significant socio-cultural, economic and political differences between these countries and Canada, the findings of the studies will be of limited value to Canada, possibly save with respect to the immigrants and refugees originating from the specific countries and areas where the research will be conducted.

Noteworthy in this announcement is the fact while the Minister speaks in terms of the eradication of the practice on the international front, the term did not cross the Ministerial lips during the 2017 domestic funding announcements or, for that matter, the Prime Ministerial ones .

If one were to take the Minister’s identification of the starting point  to the eradication of the problem at face value,  then the question arises as to whether to date, Mr. Hussen, during his consultations  or  those of the persons in his employ for this specific purpose, have had these conversation.

If the conversations occurred, judging from the current state of affairs, evidently these did not lead to a consensus in favour of eradication. On the other hand, if Mr. Hussen did not have these conversations and does not intend to have them, then clearly, the government has no intention to eradicate the practice, damn be the Canadian values and human rights.

This in turn leads me to the question as to whether the Canadian values and human rights in action at home are stacking up against those of other western countries fighting the scrooge of FGM.

The short answer to the question is that Canada, not having done much, if anything at all, of significance; it has very little, if anything, worth stacking.

On the other hand, the U.S., U.K. and Australia conducted research which determined the number of girls at risk on the home front, which turned out to be 507,000 in the U.S; 197,000 in the U.K, and 83,000 in Australia.

Further, during the early summer of 2017, the U.S. Homeland Security launched a pilot program to help prevent vacation cutting where security agents are trained to identify at risk girls based on the U.K. initiative at London’s Heathrow airport.

According to various reports identified in Dr. Packer’s paper, by 2012, France had 40 successful prosecutions; Denmark started prosecuting, the latest, in 2009; Australia began to do so in 2014, while the picture in the U.K on this score appears to be somewhat disconcerting.

In the meantime, to date in Canada’s provincial Attorneys- General who prosecute offences under the Criminal Code, have yet to prosecute a single breach of the 1997 provisions of the Code concerning FGM, while the successive federal governments including the current one, have stayed mum and out of sight

The reports also indicate   that some European countries are actively taking measures to prevent the practice. As summarised by Dr. Packer, these initiatives are: a) In 2012, the Dutch government launched a declaration against [FGM] known as ‘Health Passport’ intended to help at-risk girls and their parents to resist familial pressure to carry out the practice when visiting countries of origin b) the U.K.  government is currently requiring immigrants to sign a declaration promising not to subject their daughters to the practice before being allowed to enter the country.

To be fair, the Conservative Party is playing politics for the peanut gallery because both before and after inserting the Liberal’s problem paragraph, it did absolutely nothing to fight FGM and prevent the spread of this practice in Canada. For that matter, nor did the governments that preceded the Conservatives, regardless of their political colours.

Based on my experience and observations as a former judge of Provincial Court and of those who prosecuted offences committed by one member of the family against another or others of them, the investigation, detection and prosecution of FGM offences present special difficulties because these processes almost inevitably penetrate the realm of very private family relationships into which, the victims or members of the family or both, dare not enter for fear of the consequences of doing so.

Yet, the fact of the matter is also that Canada can readily address all of the problems identified above with a number of simple straight-forward measures, in collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments. These are:

1. To conduct a mandatory physical examination of the daughters aged 1 to 15 inclusive of the applicants seeking to immigrate to Canada and of those seeking refugee status (“ the girls”), at their country of origin or at the one in which they happen to reside.

2. To require immigrants and refugees to sign under oath the declaration prescribed by the U.K, before their entry into the country and, where this proves impossible or impractical for refugees, immediately upon entering Canada.

3. To conduct a mandatory physical examination of all girls aged 1-15 inclusive coming to Canada as visitors for the first time.

4. To initiate, at the points of entry to Canada, the adult members and, where appropriate, the children of families where one or more daughters have undergone FGM prior to their arrival in Canada, to the provisions of the Criminal Code and to warn them against performing or to having it performed on their younger and future children in Canada or abroad.

5. To establish mandatory a) annual physical check-up of all girls between ages 1 to 15 inclusive, at health centres, where possible ,combining it with other provincial child health measures, such as vaccinations’ and b) duty to report forthwith  the cases where FGM is identified to the appropriate authorities.

6. To establish mandatory physical examination of all the girls in the same age bracket travelling abroad and back, at both the points of departure and re-entry, with the same duty to report.

7. To provide families travelling to their country of origin were FGM is practiced with a document similar to the Dutch “Health Passport”.

 

8. To establish a data bank of the families whose children have undergone FGM.

9. To amend the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning FGM in order a) to remove the fine  option  from the penalty provision; and more importantly, and b)to shift  to the accused the onus to prove that the alleged crime did not occur,  in order to remove  the special challenge to the successful  prosecution of FGM cases,  or c) in the alternative,  to  stipulate  a set of presumptions of  fact which the defence is required to rebut.

From the foregoing statement of facts and analysis, the Prime Minister and his government espouse three sets of Canadian values and human rights. These are

First, a set for the international stage, often enough used in a manner so as not to upset or to appease the subscribers to the third set.

A second set, for the home front that incorporates the values and human rights of the western civilisation and of international bodies such as the U.N to cater to the dominant majority of the Canadian society.\

A third set, also for the home front that comprises a mix of western and foreign, at times, conflicting set of values, customs, traditions that form the cultural heritage imported to Canada and practiced by a segment of the Canadian society whose members originate from countries where FGM is practiced.\

In the result, the Trudeau government continues to engage, with no relief in sight, in the unconscionable and cruel violation of the human rights of defenceless Canadian girls aged 1 to 15 at risk, whose one or both parents subscribe to the third set of values while providing substantial financial assistance to other countries to enable them to fight and eradicate the FGM practice.\

______________________________________________________________________________

Dogan Akman was born and schooled in Istanbul, Turkey. Upon his graduation, he immigrated to Canada. He started his professional career teaching sociology, criminology and social welfare policy at the undergraduate level. After a stint as a Judge of the Provincial Court of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he joined the Federal Department of Justice as a Crown prosecutor, He later moved over to civil litigation and specialised in aboriginal law. He retired from the practice of law in 2009.

---