Women's Views on News |
| Men and FGM: cause and prevention Posted: 15 Dec 2016 02:44 PM PST
The Leeds based Black Health Initiative warned recently that midwives from Africa are now being flown into the UK to carry out the illegal practice and girls are being taken to female genital mutilation (FGM) “parties” in cities in different parts of England. Heather Nelson, chief executive of the Black Health Initiative, told BBC News recently: “What we’re finding now is that where once girls were taken abroad to be cut, specialist midwives are now flown over and several girls are cut at the same time, which then leads to a celebration.” FGM is an illegal practice in the UK and carries a sentence of up to 14 years in jail, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is estimated that over 500,000 women and girls are living with FGM in Europe, 137,000 of them girls and women in the UK. The United Kingdom has the highest prevalence of FGM in Europe. There had been limited research on men's involvement in decision making on FGM, so a cross-European project engaging men on the issue of FGM, 'Men Speak Out', was launched in January 2015, with FORWARD, a leading African diaspora women’s campaign and support organisation, the UK partner. And on 8 December 2016 'Men Speak Out' released ground-breaking research addressing the role men play in the practice of FGM – and the campaign to end it. The research aimed to get a better understanding of men's perceptions of how FGM might be related to sexuality and marriage. Although FGM is practised by Christians, Muslims as well as followers of indigenous religious practice, Muslims perceived "female circumcision" to be an essential element of their religious identity. Younger male respondents, who had not resided in Europe for long, expressed uncertainty about whether the practice was an Islamic requirement or only a recommendation. However, they were certain that it was a religious tradition. Older participants in all three countries suggested that people who were in support of the practice believed that it was an Islamic practice but that this belief was wrong – it was just "cultural". In the UK none of the interviewed religious leaders said that there was a religious justification for the practice but that it was linked to social expectations, family honour and marriage. Some of the issues that were raised were that cut women had less desire for sex, were less sexually active, asked for sex less frequently, sometimes "have to be persuaded" to have sex, were in pain during intercourse or did not feel a lot of pleasure. Other men had not had sexual experiences with uncut women or reported that they had not noticed a difference and it was impossible for a man to tell if his partner was cut or not. Some men vehemently disagreed with the idea that cut women do not experience any pleasure and said that they just took longer "to prepare" or "warm up". Almost all participants admitted that FGM was an important criteria for marriage and that among their communities ‘back home’, uncut women were not considered desirable for marriage. More than 50 per cent of the respondents indicated that they knew some of the consequences of FGM. Most of them said that it was only after arriving in Europe that they realised that the health problems their partners were experiencing were related to FGM. Most research participants agreed that men are traditionally less involved or uninvolved in decisions regarding FGM. The father is more often than not uninformed about the whole process. Most men suggested that it was not their place to get involved in the practice, that it was women's business. Nevertheless many participants agreed that although women are the practitioners of FGM, the practice is done for men's benefit and for control over the female body. By not speaking out against it or by silencing the issue, men consent to having their daughters cut. In addition, men are the ones who pay for the practice or the ‘party’, if there is one. Many respondents suggested that decisions regarding FGM are also a communal matter and the man has the final say. If he opposes the practice then it is more likely to stop. When asked what could be done to stop the practice, participants suggested that communication between men and women was crucial for an abandonment of FGM. On an interpersonal and private level, it is important that husband and wife speak to each other about the practice and discuss the decision not to have their daughters cut. Many participants mentioned that it was very important to involve different kinds of leaders in the abandonment movement, such as religious leaders, opinion leaders and community leaders; people thought that it would help if they spoke out about the practice. The research includes findings on: the reasons for practicing FGM; men's knowledge of FGM and its health risks; communication between women and men about FGM; men's perceptions of FGM specifically in relation to sexuality, marriage and law; and men's involvement in the decision-making process. The resulting study was launched on 8 December in the House of Commons' Jubilee Room, and hosted by Baroness Jenny Tonge of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. You can read and download the full research paper here. If you’re worried a child is at risk of, or has had, FGM, you can call the FGM helpline: 0800 028 3550. It’s free, anonymous and open 24/7. |
| Posted: 15 Dec 2016 02:36 PM PST
Over 300 abused women, mostly of Muslim and other minority faiths, have issued a statement announcing their objections to the use of parallel legal systems based on fundamentalist religious codes in the UK. The House of Common’s Home Affairs Committee launched an inquiry into Sharia councils operating in the UK in June this year. The Committee was to examine how Sharia councils operate in practice, their work resolving family and divorce disputes and their relationship with the British legal system. Debate on the subject has thus far overwhelmingly focused on religious identity politics rather than women's rights and access to justice. The Select Committee appears to have chosen not to hear from witnesses experienced in front line advocacy work with BME women – work which has necessarily involved the invocation of human rights and equalities legislation to challenge Sharia laws. It has also not asked to hear from women who refuse to use Sharia Courts ‘out of fear and distrust arising from their own negative experiences of religious control in their communities’. These and other concerns regarding the treatment of witnesses were raised in a letter to MP Yvette Cooper in November. More recently, Pragna Patel, from Southhall Black Sisters, writing in the Guardian, said: 'The experiences of these women tell us that the entrenchment of sharia councils and parallel legal systems within minority communities creates a space for the perpetuation of patriarchal control and harm to women, children and others perceived to be apostates, atheists and nonconformists. 'Secular feminist spaces – the long fought for and now beleaguered refuges and advocacy centres – are their best hope of accessing justice. 'Secular – not religious – spaces provide vulnerable minority women with alternatives to violence, isolation and fear, creating opportunities to build solidarity based on need and not religious or communal identity.’ The evidence and testimonies gathered from such women were submitted to the home affairs select committee by Southall Black Sisters and the Sisters' coalition partners as part of the One Law for All campaign which calls for: the UK government to recognise that Sharia and all religious laws are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. Citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable; an end to all Sharia courts and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights; and that the law be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system. Women who have been affected by this system have – so far – not been listened to, so they published a full statement on the subject in openDemocracy on 14 December, saying: ‘We oppose any religious body – whether presided over by men or women – that seeks to rule over us: because they do not have any authority to speak or make decisions on our behalf and because they are not committed to women's rights and social justice. Whether we are women of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Christian faiths or of no faith, we have much in common with each other in the face of cruelty, tyranny and discrimination in our families, in our communities, and in the wider society. Many of us are deeply religious, but for us religion is in our hearts: a private matter between us and our God. Religion is not – and must not be – something that can be used to deny us our freedom or the little pieces of happiness that we find by mixing and borrowing from many different traditions and cultures which give meaning to our otherwise difficult existence. We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm. For this reason alone, we are fearful of religious laws and rulings from such bodies. Our experience in our countries of origin and in our communities tells us that they are deeply discriminatory and divisive. They will weaken our collective struggles for security and independence. We struggle to fit into this country and to educate our children, especially our daughters, and to protect them and give them a better life. We struggle to have our experiences of violence and abuse addressed properly in accordance with the principles of equality and justice for all. We do not wish to be judged by reference to fundamentalist codes that go against our core values of compassion, tolerance and humanity. We do not want to go backwards or to be delivered back into the hands of our abusers and those who shield them. We do not want Sharia Councils or other religious bodies to rule our lives. We demand the right to be valued as human beings and as equals before one law for all. We demand the right to follow our own desires and aspirations.’ Three hundred women have signed this so far, some using only their first names to avoid recognition – having fled domestic violence, for example. Some are the sisters of women who died in so-called honour killings, and some have survived Sharia Court abuses. To read their names, click here. Any women who are either a victim of violence and abuse or concerned about the issues mentioned, are invited to join the 300 signatories; to make your voice be heard, click here to add your name to the statement. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |