Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.As I said over there, say what?!?
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) says the practice of "ritual nicks" could meet the cultural needs of some women and potentially save some people from drastic surgery.
Although illegal in Australia, female genital mutilation is common among some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities but has been known to leave some young girls scarred for life when not carried out in proper clinical facilities.
Isn’t leaving young girls scarred for life the very point and essence of this procedure in the first place?
I can’t say it better than AE:
"So, for what it's worth, and speaking as a migrant who's also adapting to the way things are done in Australia*, here's my suggestion. If Australia is such a tempting place to come and live then it must also be worth giving up the idea that one somehow has a right to mutilate one's offspring and accepting the more western concept of the individual being free from the threat of a parent setting about their crotch with cutlery. But if mutilating children is more important then don't f****** come here in the first place, because if you're caught doing it we'll send you away for f****** decades, you sick f***."Seconded!
I think a variation of Sir Charles James Napiers' comments on Sati would be apposite in such cases.
Yep, "We have a custom also..."
Kind of related, I saw this gem in the In(sane)dependent today on Australia's changing policies on asylum:
"Mr Howard's hardline measures proved such an effective deterrent that, for many years, few would-be refugees even bothered making the journey."
Uh-huh. Next paragraph read:
"That has changed over the past 18 months, partly as a result of global events such as the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka."
Or indeed partly as a result of a successful policy being repudiated and very conspicuously abandoned. Cognitive dissonance or wilful untruth?
No one forces you to be civilised, so dont go there if you won't live within the rules.
I don't agree, Anon. They shouldn't be on the sexual offenders register. They should be dangling from the nearest tree.
"I think a variation of Sir Charles James Napiers' comments on Sati would be apposite in such cases."
Indeed. As Peter Risdon points out, that one rang a bell for many people.
"Cognitive dissonance or wilful untruth?"
Tough call. It's the 'Indy', so I'll go with the latter.
"They shouldn't be on the sexual offenders register. They should be dangling from the nearest tree."
SBS - 'Also the yiddish cock choppers should be up in court.'
Male circumsion is a minor operation which increases cleanliness both for the man and his sexual partner(s). This is why Jewish women have lower incidence of womb cancer than than their gentile sisters.
By the way, I didn't know Joe Goebbels' grandson posted here.
*Strawman willfully missing the point alert*
Post a Comment