It seems that there will be a new bill debated, possibly even before Christmas, that will see some changes to the law in relation to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) proposed and argued.
Cross party support has been gained for this issue with the bill being sponsored by Priyanca Radhakrishnan from Labour, Jo Hayes from National, Ghahraman from the Greens, and Jenny Marcroft from NZ First.
Great. This all sounds good so far. I have no problem with all parties getting on board with each other when it comes to issues such as this so all power to them.
According to these women, although FGM is illegal already in NZ, there are apparently some loopholes, which the new bill aims to close.
However, a look at our current law would indicate that it is pretty solid. It has been around since at least 1996 and has been regularly updated. Here is a couple of links to the legislation. S.204A which covers FGM and S.204B which covers further issues relating to FGM. Some excerpts are below.
204A Female genital mutilation
(1) For the purposes of this section,— female genital mutilation means the excision, infibulation, or mutilation of the whole or part of the labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris of any person.
Subject to subsection (3), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who performs, or causes to be performed, on any other person, any act involving female genital mutilation.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) applies in respect of—
(a) any medical or surgical procedure (including a sexual reassignment procedure) that is performed on any person—
(i) for the benefit of that person’s physical or mental health; and
(ii) by a medical practitioner:
(b) any medical or surgical procedure that is performed on any person—
(i) while that person is in labour or immediately after that person gives birth; and
(ii) for the benefit of that person’s health or the health of the child; and
(iii) by a medical practitioner or a midwife or a trainee health professional, or by any other person in any case where the case is urgent and no medical practitioner or midwife or trainee health professional is available.
(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not any medical or surgical procedure is performed on any person for the benefit of that person’s physical or mental health, no account shall be taken of the effect on that person of any belief on the part of that person or any other person that the procedure is necessary or desirable as, or as part of, a cultural, religious, or other custom or practice.
(6) It is no defence to a charge under this section that the person on whom the act involving female genital mutilation was performed consented to that act, or that the person charged believed that such consent had been given.
204B Further offences relating to female genital mutilation, relates to allowing, inciting, procuring etc, FGM outside of New Zealand, whether or not the actual procedure is even carried out and whether or not consent was received.
This all seems reasonable to me. The practice is outlawed and although I’m not a lawyer, it seems pretty robust. I wonder what these loopholes are that need to be changed.
It’s all very well to say you are going to fix something but just vaguely saying that you will remove loopholes without actually mentioning any of these apparent loopholes strikes me as just a little bit of virtue signalling.
Apparently their joint Member’s Bill will outlaw FGM in all circumstances. What does this mean? Will it no longer be legal for a midwife to give an episiotomy? Will sex-change operations be banned?
“The Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill is intended to update the definition of FGM in the New Zealand Crimes Act, to align with standard World Health Organisation (WHO) classifications of types of FGM and international best practice recommendations,”
Golriz Gharamen
So what exactly is the WHO position on this? As far as I can tell, this from the WHO is what she is talking about.
Female genital mutilation is classified into 4 major types.
- Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
- Type 2: Often referred to as excision, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva ).
- Type 3: Often referred to as infibulation, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy).
- Type 4: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Well ok, this is all good, but is there anything in here that isn’t already included in our Crimes Act definitions?
And more to the point, have our laws ever actually been used? I’m afraid I wouldn’t have the first clue as to where to ask that question but I think I would remember hearing about it if something like that had been reported. Uncle Wiki says there have been no prosecutions here. Please feel free to correct me in the comments if I am wrong here.
Oddly, the World Health Organisation factsheet linked above has a lot to say about FGM being done for ‘cultural’ reasons etc. It also has this to say about the religious aspects, ‘Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.’
Absolutely no mention is made of the primary religion that seemingly the great majority of FGM adherents belongs to.
In summary, good on these women for bringing the hideous practice of FGM to the forefront of New Zealanders minds, but I think I will wait to see what changes are being proposed before I make any judgement on the usefulness of any of those changes.
Knowing this Government as we do, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the new legislation or definitions simply stuff up the existing laws and rather than close loopholes, might simply create new ones, or maybe even accidentally turn Doctors and Midwives into criminals. Will you accidentally become a criminal because you consented to an intimate piercing?
Let’s hope a little more time is spent debating this bill than that put into the current mutilation of our firearm legislation. And we would hate to upset the “Trannies” now, wouldn’t we?