Ending FGM in the UK: the need for a multi-strategy approach

Ending FGM in the UK: the need for a multi-strategy approach
The issue of female genital mutilation has received renewed media interest following a two-part BBC
Newsnight special exposing the startling new statistic that around 20,000 young girls are at risk of
being cut each year in the UK. The figure, along with the fact that no prosecutions for FGM have
taken place since the practice was first made illegal in the mid-1980s, has been repeated countless
times in the popular media since the show was aired in late July, attaching a new seriousness to the
issue and hopefully placing the need for increased protective measures firmly atop of government
agendas. However, whilst recognising that all publicity is good publicity with a topic as historically
taboo as FGM, the campaign to eradicate the practice in the UK - and indeed the rest of the world must not become a narrow discussion about prosecution statistics. Criticising politicians for failing to
put people behind bars alone will not bring about the wider societal shift that needs to take place in
order for FGM to become a thing of the past.
The World Health Organisation defines FGM as the partial or total removal of the external female
genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons (Female Genital
Mutilation factsheet, WHO, February 2012). More widely understood as a cultural practice, rather
than a religious ritual with theological justification, FGM - or ‘cutting’ as it is commonly known - is
typically performed on girls between four and thirteen years old, but in some cases is performed on
new-born infants and young women before marriage or pregnancy. It is usually carried out by
traditional circumcisers within the community at the request of family members who view FGM as
an important ‘purifying’ procedure. FGM essentially prevents women from experiencing any sexual
pleasure and is medically unnecessary. It is often carried out with little or no anaesthetic and has
serious health consequences, both at the time of the mutilation and in later life. The NHS now offers
genital reconstructive surgery free of charge and victims are to some extent able to get their lives
back on track; however, the psychological and emotional impact of FGM cannot be overstated.
In light of the recent statistic brought to us by Newsnight, most people would agree that more needs
to be done to tackle FGM in the UK. The recent media attention given to the issue is undoubtedly a
good thing for those organisations that have long been working with victims to eradicate the
practice. For those who were not so familiar with the topic, it seems incomprehensible that not one
person has been prosecuted for FGM since it became a criminal offence in the UK under the
Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act of 1985, despite frequent suggestion that thousands of girls
are mutilated on British soil each year. Newsnight presenter, Gavin Elser, also seemed baffled by this
and asked members of the specially-selected panel - including Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone and
FGM Campaigner Wiras Dirie - why a blind eye has been turned to FGM for so long. Within minutes
the panel seemed to agree that the UK should be following in the footsteps of France, where a zero
tolerance approach has resulted in the conviction of 100 parents and practitioners. French lawyers
claim that the tougher laws have helped to send out a clear message that the mutilation of young
girls will not be tolerated and, as BBC presenter Sue Lloyd Roberts explained, they scoff at what they
call ‘British cultural sensitivity’ - an attitude which they claim masks issues of gender violence within
the broader discourse of multiculturalism and paralyses social workers, teachers and police officers
from carrying out their work.
While it would be convenient to blame ‘leftie’ politicians and political correctness for the lack of
FGM prosecutions in the UK, this view is far too simplistic. Mutilations often occur at a very young
age and bring with them unimaginable levels of shame. And as long as there are no widespread
education programmes in schools or at community-level and walls of silence remain, it follows that
victims will be reluctant to come forward. Moreover, as is the case with forced marriage under the
new Scottish legislation, many victims will be dissuaded from coming forward to accuse their parents
of FGM, knowing that the offence carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Using prosecution
statistics as the primary indicator for measuring ‘progress’ in the campaign to end FGM is, therefore,
a flawed approach. On an additional note, considering that current UK Government priorities are
with reducing net migration to below 100,000 by 2015 (Home Affairs Committee report, UK
Parliament, 23 July 2012) and clearly not with the wellbeing of Britain’s ethnic communities, it does
not seem entirely wise to leave the FGM campaign strictly in government hands.
One more, slightly obvious, reason why focusing solely on prosecution as a solution to the problem
of FGM is ill-advised: it clearly does not work. People may praise the French approach to FGM and
celebrate the fact that 100 people have been brought to justice for carrying it out, however, this
number is dwarfed by the thousands of families migrating from France to other countries each year
in order to carry out FGM. Campaigners interviewed for Newsnight even admitted that this is
becoming something of a common practice, proving that the measures in France do little to tackle
the root causes of FGM and simply drive families elsewhere.
The measures taken in France are not only ineffective but are also potentially harmful. The
inspection of young girls’ genitalia has become a routine practice in French schools and GPs admit
that this often takes place along racial lines, where only girls from ‘high risk’ ethnic minorities are
selected for inspection (Sue Lloyd Roberts, ‘Hidden world of female genital mutilation in the UK’,
BBC News, 23 July 2012). This measure is personally invasive for those subjected to it and also hugely
stigmatising for ethnic minority communities on the whole. Allowing girls from certain ethnic
minority communities to be singled out feeds into narratives of ‘otherness’ and, in the long run, may
further alienate individuals from support networks.
We must not idealise French society when it comes to the treatment of ethnic minorities, though it
is hard not to be disillusioned with current UK approaches to FGM, especially when confronted with
the knowledge that Lynne Featherstone last week seemed completely unaware of those migrating to
the UK solely for the purpose of carrying out FGM. French politicians encourage the total
assimilation of immigrants and, by default, promote the elimination of difference as the key to a
harmonious society. In the quest to tackle gender-based violence head on, the French Government
has put in place a nationwide ban on face veils, making it illegal for Muslim women to wear a burka
or niqab in public. And, while it is easy to agree in principle with policies claiming to protect the
vulnerable, the danger of top-down policies targeting the behaviour of certain communities is that
they violate many of the basic rights they claim to protect, being dogmatic and racist by nature. The
French ban on face veils, for instance, has not liberated women from the shackles of religious
conservatism as supporters claimed it would, but instead has taken away a fundamental choice and,
more broadly, has failed to tackle systematic gender inequalities in society. In the UK, secularism is
interpreted more widely to include a plurality of coexisting beliefs, values and customs and the
outright rejection of certain principles of multiculturalism - as seen in France - is not something we
should be quick to adopt. Despite what some commentators say about ‘leftie cultural
squeamishness’ preventing politicians from tackling human rights abuses that are happening on our
doorstep, developing effective measures for ending traditional practices such as FGM and forced
marriage and remaining an essentially inclusive, pluralistic society are not mutually exclusive aims.
Like forced marriage, FGM is a traditional practice that stems from wider structural inequalities
affecting women; it is important to remember that FGM is widely understood by those who
perpetrate it as a ‘purifying’ procedure based on the idea that women should have no sexual
pleasure. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes and is recognised internationally as a
clear form of violence against women and girls. It is also a practice carried out mainly by female
members of ethnic minority communities, on a generation to generation basis, again demonstrating
the extent to which particular misogynies are embedded. Realising this, politicians in the
Netherlands have been working alongside members of ethnic minority communities in order to
develop effective community education programmes and anti-FGM publicity materials (Margreet de
Boer, ‘Female Genital Mutilation in the Netherlands: a matter of human rights?’, policy paper in
cooperation with Alem Desta VON - Refugee Organisations in the Netherlands, 2007). They are
currently trialling a package of preventative measures including an official travel document for those
travelling to ‘high risk’ countries signed by the Health Minister and making it clear FGM is a criminal
offence (‘New Dutch campaign against female circumcision’, Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 10
March 2011). Additionally, Marie Staunton - Chief Executive of Plan UK - recently reported on the
situation in Mali where progress is being made to tackle FGM before it takes place by working with
both ethnic minorities and the wider community to raise awareness of the health risks involved with
FGM; she pointed out that criminalising an abuse is ineffective without action to inform and enforce
(‘Female genital mutilation: what the UK can learn from overseas’, New Statesman, 25 July 2012).
The UK and Scottish governments are urged by European campaigners to stop tip-toeing around the
issue of FGM and help destroy the excessively-tolerant image of British society that is being
perpetuated across the channel. As Newsnight brutally highlighted, there is a pattern of FGM-related
migration to the UK that cannot be ignored and governments here have a responsibility to send the
correct message about what is acceptable and what is not. However, it is hoped that in the course of
developing stronger protections for young girls, enough thought will be given to the need for
preventative, community-level programmes, which are a more effective way of challenging deeplyentrenched attitudes in any society. Stricter law enforcement is only one part of the method we
should be promoting in the fight to end FGM; it is not, as is easily forgotten, the end goal in itself.
Lauren Wilks
roshni Intern