A "ritual nick" too far

June 25, 2010
By Victoria Moore - The Sydney Morning Herald

In October 1992 a program went to air on ABC TV called Where Angels Fear to Tread on female genital mutilation. I was involved through a program the ABC offered to aspiring writers called Writer-in-Observation.


The storyline was of a young schoolgirl of Muslim background who was brought to the surgery by her mother to have a procedure performed that involved female genital mutilation. This placed the doctors in a dilemma. It was a procedure that although not banned at the time was strongly advised against by the Australian Medical Association, leaving individual doctors to make their own ethical decisions.

The arguments made were that if Australian doctors did not perform this procedure, it would, much like the abortion debate, lead to back-alley bungling or the girl being taken overseas to have the procedure.

The young girl, herself, it was revealed, had serious doubts, but the pressure from within her community to have the procedure was extreme. Pressure that was brought to bear by the mothers and grandmothers and, indeed, the euphemism most commonly used was "going to grandma's".

In 1994, two years after the screening of this episode, the AMA banned all forms of female genital mutilation Australia-wide. But, now here in Australia, it has been suggested that a "ritual nick" could be performed to appease cultural sensibilities in some Muslim communities. http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/doctors-dont-support-ritual-nicking-20100528-wi3t.html

The idea for a "ritual nick" was raised by the American Academy of Paediatrics, and promptly retracted. The procedure is a prick or nick of a girl's clitoral skin.

It is a less severe form of female genital mutilation, which in its most acute form, called infibulation, involves the removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the sewing up of the labia majora covering the urethra and leaving only a small vaginal opening. In some countries still, if a girl has not had this procedure performed she is considered unworthy of marriage. It also makes childbirth extremely dangerous — can you imagine giving birth through a vagina that has been sewn up so that only a very small opening remains? Doctors in London 30 years ago were forced to perform hysterectomies to save the lives of Middle Eastern women who had given birth after enduring female genital mutilation.

And yet as this idea of a "ritual nick" gains media coverage here, attitudes against female genital mutilation continue to advance throughout the Middle East. Egypt, for example, now performs these "ritual nicks" as opposed to the more severe form of mutilation, but infibulation is still prevalent in East African countries and small communities in Asia. It is estimated that between 4 and 5 million of these procedures are performed annually world-wide.

In Muslim countries where these customs are still being observed, there are woman taking great risks, sometimes life threatening, to protect their young girls from these practices. They themselves want it to cease once and for all. If we in Australia legitimise these practices, however ritualistically, it will totally negate their work, their beliefs and their futures. Now is not the time to succumb to this tradition.

Indeed in Switzerland it is not only illegal to peform these types of procedures, but children can also be removed from their parents if it is found that they have subjected them to female genital mutilation. This has resulted in all but ceasing the practice in the East African immigrant population in that country.

The federal government should pass into law all the recommendations of the Australian Medical Association that have been in place since 1994 so that female genital mutilation, in whatever form, is not performed here.

Victoria Moore is a freelance writer now living in regional Victoria.

Female circumcision under consideration

May 31, 2010

By IBT Health

Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.

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.

Former commissioner and current state Liberal MP, Pru Goward, has called for action against  initiating the practice of circumcision and said it is a form of child abuse. She said it doesn't matter whether it is cultural or not, it is against the law.

''I think the Federal Government needs to have an education campaign as part of our immigration program, and if you are introducing  people from other countries where you know it goes on, you need to let them know it is unlawful and it is not acceptable.''

 Elizabeth Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner for the Australian Human Rights Commission said: "I disagree with the suggestion by the RANZCOG that we should, for any reason, entertain a practice of "ritual nicks" in a sterile environment. 

"In my opinion female genital mutilation or female circumcision, whatever you want to call it, is violence against women, often against children and young women."

RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro told News Ltd, "We will need to start to think about [its introduction] but we would have to speak to community leaders from Australia."

"But we need to make sure we do not legitimise the ritualistic maiming of children."

RANZCOG said the issue would be discussed at a women's health meeting in June.

Female circumcision happening in Australia

February 6, 2010 By Emily Bourke - ABC News

Health authorities in Australia say they are concerned about the growing number of women who have undergone some form of genital mutilation.

Female circumcision is illegal in Australia, but experts say there is evidence that it is being practised here.

More and more migrant women are also seeking help after having the procedure in their home countries.

Across Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia, female genital mutilation is practised on about three million girls and women each year. The centuries-old custom has been outlawed in Australia since the 1990s.

But that has not stopped it happening here, according to Dr Ted Weaver from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

"There is some evidence to suggest that it does happen in certain parts of Australia," he said.

"It's hard to gauge the actual numbers because it's prohibited by legislation and it's something that is performed in an underground way.

"But certainly there have been reports of children being taken to hospital after having the procedure done with complications from that procedure."

Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital says it is seeing between 600 and 700 women each year who have experienced it in some form.

Somali-born Zeinab Mohamud, from the hospital's Family and Reproductive Rights Education Program, says much of her work involves untangling some outdated cultural traditions and religious misconceptions.

"Some questions that we ask the women is 'why were you doing it?' and they will tell you, 'because of my religion'," she said.

"We bring imams or priests to convince them that there is nothing from both books that says you have to do circumcision to girls. So why are you doing it?"

Ms Mohamud is optimistic the practice will end, but she fears migrant communities or individual women will be demonised.

"Some people when they hear they say, 'how can that happen?' It's when something is cultural and the people have been doing it for so long, it's not easy to either eliminate it or to say, 'you have got a bad culture'," she said.

"You have to work with them, listen to them. You have to know where they are coming from in order to help them."

Dr Ted Weaver agrees and he says ordering people against the practice would be inappropriate.

"If we try and dictate and pontificate about this and not provide culturally appropriate care, we'll further disenfranchise those women," he said.

"Any progress will be incremental. I don't think that it's something that will stop overnight.

"But I think all we can do is advocate against it, speak out, try to educate women, try to empower women, certainly in this country, and we should do our best for international organisations that are also espousing the same message."

Huge support for Kenyan fugitives

YUKO NARUSHIMA September 23, 2009 OUTRAGE at Australia's plan to deport two women possibly facing genital mutilation in Kenya has triggered an alliance between political adversaries, lawyers and refugee groups who want the Immigration Minister to intervene. Independent senator Nick Xenophon joined the Opposition and the Greens in urging the minister, Chris Evans, to use his intervention powers to grant the women visas. Grace Gichuhi, 22, and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, 21, fear deportation from Sydney would force them into female circumcision. The pair were rejected as refugees by the immigration department, an independent tribunal and then the minister despite a bill before parliament aimed at protecting such women. A groundswell of concerned readers yesterday contacted the The Age, appalled by the situation and eager to help. ''If the laws are changed, these women have a clear case for asylum,'' Senator Xenophon said. ''I urge the minister to exercise discretion to give these two women asylum.'' The comments were echoed by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who said the women sounded like ''prime candidates'' for the proposed ''complementary protection'' laws aimed at building on existing refugee criteria. Currently, refugees' fear of persecution has to be based on ''race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion'', allowing people facing genital mutilation for other reasons to be sent home. While Opposition spokeswoman for immigration Sharman Stone supported a second look at the pair's cases, she rejected the need for the new laws, saying the existing intervention powers were adequate. The Coalition will oppose complementary protection in the Senate. ''The minister of the day looks at what are often very complex, one-off situations, and he or she doesn't have to adhere strictly to any convention. They can then exercise their own sense of what is right and just and humane,'' Dr Stone said. But supporters of the change, including a member of her own party, said Dr Stone had outlined precisely what was wrong with existing laws. Professor of public law at the University of Sydney, Mary Crock, said the changes gave certainty to women such as Ms Gichuhi and Ms Muturi, whose cases would be ''no brainers'' if departmental officials had laws to apply. Liberal MP Petro Georgiou said current powers before the minister had limitations. He said: ''Ministerial intervention is not subject to a process other than an individual's position and the system can be improved.'' Immigration officials, who had told the women to prepare for deportation, are reassessing their claims with new information to put before the minister. Senator Evans' spokesman could not give a timeframe for a decision.

Australia mulls Kenyan women's 'circumcision' case

September 23, 2009 SYDNEY — Australia's government is considering intervening to stop the deportation of two Kenyan women who fear they will be circumcised if forced to return home, officials said Wednesday. Grace Gichuhi, 22, and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, 21, have been in Australia since festivities for Catholic World Youth Day in July last year and have exhausted their avenues under Australian law to apply for asylum. Debate is due to begin on a new law which would extend protection visas to women seeking refuge from honour killings or female genital mutilation, but it is opposed by the conservative opposition. While current laws do not cover Gichuhi and Muturi's claims, Immigration Minister Chris Evans said he was willing to consider directly intervening in their case. "The two women have submitted new requests for ministerial intervention and these will be thoroughly assessed," a spokesman for Evans told AFP. "The women will not be removed from Australia while these applications are on hand." Both women come from families where it was customary to circumcise the clitoris, a practice known in the West as female genital mutilation. Gichuhi said her mother had been killed by members of the Mungiki sect for refusing to have her clitoris cut off, and she also feared death in the crude operation. "They use a knife. Just a knife, no medicine," she told Fairfax newspapers. "They circumcise you and maybe you die." Muturi said she was sold for 10 cows to marry a 70-year-old man and would also be circumcised against her will if forced to return. Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone has said the proposed new law would open the floodgates to false claims and abuse. Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.

Government failing 'silent asylum seekers'

By Meredith Griffiths for AM Posted Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:05pm AEST The Australian Immigration Department has been criticised for failing to adequately protect people facing human rights abuses in their home countries. A young Kenyan woman who came to Australia for World Youth Day wants to stay because she claims she will be circumcised if she returns to Kenya. She has been told she does not qualify for refugee status, but the Catholic Church has taken up her cause. When Teresia Ndikaru Muturi arrived in Australia for World Youth Day last year, she knew she never wanted to go back to Kenya. "Because I'm fearing my own mum for how she's forcing me to marry [an] old man, to leave school and yet I don't want to leave my school. Also I'm fearing to be circumcised," she said. Her mother is a member of the outlawed Mungiki sect which practices female genital mutilation. Ms Muturi says the sect believes you can only become a full woman and get married once you are circumcised. Five years ago when Ms Muturi was 16, her mother suddenly told her that she had arranged for her marriage to an older man, and that she had already received a payment of cash, cows and goats. "He brought cows and goats for my mum, so no way I could escape from it, I have to get married," she said. Ms Muturi ran away and lived with her step-sister until her uncle, who is a priest, arranged for her to come to Australia. Knocked back Her application for asylum has been rejected and she was also unsuccessful at the Refugee Review Tribunal. In January she was put in touch with Franciscan nun, Sister Aileen Crowe, who applied to the Minister Chris Evans to intervene. That too was knocked back. Sister Crowe says Ms Muturi falls into a certain group she dubs the silent asylum seekers. "There is nothing for them. Australian law up until now does not recognise them at all. The only way they can be recognised is if they go to the Minister," she said. Sister Crowe has now made a second application to the Minister, adding new information about Ms Muturi's psychological state But earlier this week, Immigration Department staff told her she had to buy a plane ticket to leave the country next month. A spokesman for Chris evans says Ms Muturi will not be forced to leave the country until the new information has been thoroughly assessed. Sister Crowe says it is a hit and miss approach. "Four girls in this house once got permanent protection and the other three haven't and they're all from Kenya," she said. "Four Ugandan girls suffered the same possibilities, all got protection on the first go. It's just a lottery, but people's lives are at stake in this lottery." Sister Crowe says Chris Evans is not receiving all the information he needs to decide on cases. The Government has introduced legislation to Parliament to establish complementary protection visas for people who are not covered by the Refugee Convention. Sister Crowe is calling on the Minister not to send anyone away until that legislation has completed its passage through Parliament.

Australia proposes new refugee law for women

Associated Press September 9, 2009 Australia's government proposed a new law Wednesday that would give asylum to immigrant women who would be at risk of genital mutilation or honor killings if forced to return to their homelands. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said such women did not always fit the definition of refugees under the United Nation's Refugees Convention because their persecution was not necessarily based on race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. The new legislation introduced to Parliament on Wednesday widens the criteria under which Australia can grant protection to asylum seekers. It was not clear when Parliament will vote on the legislation. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision, as any procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It estimates that 100 million to 140 million girls and women worldwide have had the procedure performed on them, most in African countries.

Girls' Hidden Agony

From July 16, 2009 Ben Packham AFRICAN immigrant girls are increasingly being forced by their families to have barbaric female genital mutilation, Immigration Minister Chris Evans has been warned. The minister has been told the painful ritual is almost certainly being practised here, and some girls may have been flown to Africa for the disfiguring procedure. Senator Evans received briefings "to respond to concerns that (mutilation) is increasingly being practised on permanent residents/Australian citizens". But community liaison officers said it was difficult to know how widespread it was. Concerns have also been raised with the minister over growing levels of domestic violence in African communities, particularly against Sudanese women. "One possible explanation for this is that women no longer have the protection of their extended families as they would have in their home countries," he was told. AN error in the controversial citizenship test has wrongly denied 21 people the right to become Australian. The error caused dozens of applicants to fail, but some resat the test and passed. The faulty question was in the pool of compulsory questions, of which four are asked in each test. Applicants were asked: "Who has the right to seek employment in the defence force and the police force in Australia?" The answer to the question -- that Australian residents could apply for both, pending citizenship, was wrong. In fact, the requirements of police forces vary in each state. The error went undetected from the introduction of the test in September 2007 until July last year. An Immigration Department spokesman said legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's office was to let the results stand. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said: "A new and more relevant test will be in place within the coming months."