The Female Genital Cutting - Research Paper Example

The Female Genital Cutting Debate [Name] [Course] October 11, 2015. Introduction The practice of Female Genital Cutting has received increasing attention from the global community for the last two decades. There has been mass condemnation of the practice from the Western countries and Western feminists. Amnesty International has recognized the practice of female genital cutting as a violation of human rights. As a result, the practice has been the target of various United Nations proposals as part of the UN’s human rights campaign.1The global community, especially in the countries where this practice does not exist, has condemned the practice and considered it to be a contravention of the International Human Rights instruments. Despite this condemnation on the basis of human rights, there are 28 countries where female genital cutting is practiced. This practice is commonly practiced in the Islamic culture though the practice is not a religious obligation.2The practice is cultural based and is considered as a rite of passage or a ritual on girls and young women.The debate concerning female genital cutting has been between two groups where once supports the practice based on the cultures of the places where the practice is accepted while the other group condemns the practice based on the fact that it is a violation of human rights, which are universal.3 This research paper demonstrates the conflict between cultural relativism and the concept of universalism in relation to female genital cutting. The research paper will discuss both views regarding female genital cutting and provide a conclusion on the findings. Theoretical explanation Female genital cutting is a general term that is used to describe or define different traditional practices that involve cutting of the female genitals.4This practice is conducted upon girls between the ages of four and twelve as a rite of passage. It may also be conducted just before the girl is married. In many societies where it is practiced, traditional practitioners are tasked with the responsibility of carrying out the procedure, who in most cases, have no knowledge in medicine or healthy practices. The practice is strongly anchored in the cultural beliefs and norms of the societies where it is practiced. Female Genital Cutting is often motivated by what the societies practicing it consider as proper sexual behavior. The procedures are meant to ensure premarital virginity and fidelity in marriage for the women.5 There are theories that have been raised in support of female genital cutting. One of these theories is cultural relativism.6 This theory asserts that there is no particular culture that is superior to the other when examining the concepts of morality and ethics. All cultural beliefs are, therefore, valid depending on the cultural environment where they are practiced. Every culture, therefore, has the liberty to practice what is relevant to that society without interference from another culture that has different beliefs.7 According to this theory, the cultures that accept female genital cutting should be allowed to do so without condemnation from other societies that do not understand the practice.8 This is the foundation of the concept of multiculturalism being a defense to the practice. Multiculturalism is the policy that allows different cultures in a different society to be allowed to practice their religious and cultural beliefs without interference. In Western countries, this means that those ethnic minority groups that exist in the society should be allowed to practice their beliefs without the imposition of the beliefs of the western society.9 Multiculturalism has been the basis for ethnic minorities that practice female genital cutting pushing to be allowed to practice without interference. The multicultural theory supporting female genital cutting asserts that the practice should be allowed in minority cultural groups to adults who are membersafter giving consent.10 The state, therefore, does not have the right to impose its beliefs on morality on the voluntary members of the minority cultural groups. The state must respect and not suppress the traditions of the cultural minorities. There are some feminists that argue on the same basis stating that the practice is not objectively wrong because there is no objective moral standard.11 Universalism, on the other hand, has been used to oppose the practice of female genital cutting. This theory suggests that all people are linked together by human rights which are universal.12 This means that all people are equal in dignity and in the rights that they are entitled to by virtue of being human beings. People across the world are, therefore, united against all forms of inequality, discrimination and any other violations of human rights. This view is taken by the Global feminists who state that women’s human rights are human rights that are supposed to be observed and protected internationally. This means that the rights that are provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against women, the UN Declaration of Elimination of Violence against Women and other international human rights instruments must be accorded to all women.13 The proponents of universalism state that all human beings are equal in terms of values and in the eyes of the law. This is more so regarding women who have for a long tine been oppressed. Universalists have recognized the health related concerns that are associated with female genital cutting and consider the practice as a violation of the right to health for the women affected.14The fact that the practice is performed to preserve the sexuality of the woman until when she is married has also been considered as a violation of women’s sexual rights.The practice has no health benefits to the women but rather causes harm to them. This is one of the bases for the push for the abolition of female genital cutting. The fact that the practice is still conducted is a constant violation of fundamental human rights.15 The push by universal feminists for the abolition of female genital cutting is based on an entirely different foundation from the cultural beliefs that are asserted by cultural relativists.16 Universal feminists base their campaign on the fact that all the countries in the world have accepted to uphold the rights of all human beings. This means that where such practice is contrary to the provisions of human rights international instruments, it should be abolished. This seems to be different from the allegation that the push for abolition is an attempt to impose the cultural beliefs of the western countries.17 Empirical analysis and findings The World Health Organization has defined female genital mutilation as a term referring to all procedures involving the removal, whether partial or total, of the external female genitalia or any other injury on the female genital organs that is for non-medical reasons.18Globally, approximately 130 million girls and women have undergone the practice of female genital cutting and an estimated two million women are at risk of undergoing the procedure every year. These statistics show the extent and number of women that have had to suffer the psychological and health consequences of female genital cutting. The fact that the practice violates the right to health for the women and girls affected has contributed to the global campaign against the practice.19 The fact that the practice is also performed on young girls from the age of four to twelve means that there is also the violation of the rights of the child.20Before the1990s, the international community did not consider female genital cutting as a major issue. However, this changed with the establishment of the global movement against violence conducted against women. The General Recommendation No. 14 on female circumcision in 1990 became the beginning of the fight against the practice. The General Recommendation No.19 on violence against women in 1992 also echoed the push to fight against female genital mutilation. These general recommendations acknowledged the fact that female genital cutting was no longer a national issue but rather an international one.21 The rise in the campaign against female genital cutting led by universal feminists has arisen from the range of human rights violations that arise from the practice. The focus has been to ensure that cultural beliefs are not used as a basis for violating the rights of women. The right to be free from gender discrimination is accorded to all women.22 The practice is a reflection of the inequality between men and women and, therefore, is a violation of the right to be free from gender discrimination. This right is captured under article 1 the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women. In some extreme cases, FGM has been known to be fatal. This means that the continuation of the practice while it poses a threat to life of the women who are affected is a violation to the right to life. The practice has also been known to lead to maternal and neonatal deaths. The right to life is regarded as a fundamental human right that is provided for under different human rights instruments such as article 3 of the UDHR.23 FGM violates the right of women to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. This is because the practice exposes the girls and women to physical and psychological harm and also poses risk to their reproductive health.24Women who have undergone the practice are at a higher risk, as compared to those that have not undergone the practice, of requiring a Caesarean while giving birth. The fact that this practice is performed on girls from the age of birth to 15 years is a violation of the rights of the child. Children cannot protect themselves and hence they require protection from such practice.25 Since female genital cutting is a violation of the rights of women and girls, states have the responsibility to protect women from such violation of their rights. International human rights treaties require states to respect and protect the enjoyment of the rights of individuals. This means that states have the obligation to take all necessary steps to enable all women to enjoy the protection of the rights that are guaranteed by international human rights instruments.26 Conclusion There is no doubt that female genital cutting is a violation of the rights of women. The practice is a health risk to all women who undergo the procedure. This means that the global campaign for the abolition of the practice needs to be intensified to protect women from this harmful practice. Despite the fact that states have enacted laws that prohibit female genital cutting and have criminalized the practice, there still continues to be people and societies that practice this vice. Stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed to ensure that the practice is completely abolished and to allow all women to fully enjoy the rights that are guaranteed to them. Capacity development of legal, judicial, health and gender personnel is required as a way to strengthening the institutions that lead the campaign against the practice. Bibliography Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta. "Relativism, universalism, and applied ethics: the case of female circumcision." Constellations 14, no. 1 (2007): 91-111. Kalev, Henriette. “Cultural rights or human rights: the case of female genital mutilation.”Sex roles, vol. 51, No. 5/6. 2004. Ng, F. "Female genital mutilation; its implications for reproductive health. An overview." British Journal of Family Planning 26, no. 1 (2000): 47-51. Centre for Reproductive Rights. Female genital mutilation. Centre for Reproductive Rights, 2006.http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/FGM_final.pdf United Nations Population Fund. Implementation of the international and regional human rights framework for the elimination of female genital mutilation. United Nations, 2014. World Health Organization. Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. World Health Organization, 2008. Althaus, Frances. “Female circumcision: rite of passage or violation of rights?”International Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 23, No. 3, 1997. Morison, Linda, Caroline Scherf, Gloria Ekpo, Katie Paine, Beryl West, Rosalind Coleman, and Gijs Walraven. "The long‐term reproductive health consequences of female genital cutting in rural Gambia: a community‐based survey." Tropical Medicine & International Health 6, no. 8 (2001): 643-653. Shell‐Duncan, Bettina. "From health to human rights: Female genital cutting and the politics of intervention." American Anthropologist 110, no. 2 (2008): 225-236. James, Stephen. "Reconciling international human rights and cultural relativism: the case of female circumcision." Bioethics 8, no. 1 (1994): 1-26. Cook, Rebecca J., B. M. Dickens, and Mahmoud F. Fathalla. "Female genital cutting (mutilation/circumcision): ethical and legal dimensions." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 79, no. 3 (2002): 281-287. Toubia, Nahid F., and E. H. Sharief. "Female genital mutilation: have we made progress?." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 82, no. 3 (2003): 251-261. Levin, Tobe. "Female genital mutilation and human rights." Comparative American Studies 1, no. 3 (2003): 285-316. Dorkenoo, Efua. "Cutting the rose: female genital mutilation: the practice and its prevention." (1994). Shell-Duncan, Bettina, and Ylva Hernlund. "Female circumcision in Africa: Dimensions of the practice and debates." Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy, and change (2000): 1-40. Boyle, Elizabeth Heger. Female genital cutting: Cultural conflict in the global community. JHU Press, 2005. Bunch, Charlotte. "Women's rights as human rights: Toward a re-vision of human rights." Human Rights Quarterly (1990): 486-498. Brennan, Katherine. "Influence of Cultural Relativism on International Human Rights Law: Female Circumcision as a Case Study, The." Law & Ineq. 7 (1988): 367. Miller, Michael, Francesca Moneti, C. Landini, and A. Lewnes. "Changing a harmful social convention: female genital mutilation/cutting." (2005). Slack, Alison T. "Female circumcision: A critical appraisal." Human Rights Quarterly (1988): 437-486. Dembour, Marie. Following the movement of a pendulum: between universalism and relativism. Culture and rights: anthropological perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Reichert, Elisabeth. "Human rights: An examination of universalism and cultural relativism." Journal of Comparative Social Welfare 22, no. 1 (2006): 23-36. Read More