ERITREA: Is Female Circumcision Necessary?
Q & A
Opinion
Berhane M. Tekeste
10 April 2007
The announcement last week that the government in Eritrea has banned female circumcision triggered a lot of questions revolving basically around the following topics:
1. Is Female circumcision necessary?
2. Does the government have the right to ban female circumcision at all?
3. Does the government have any valid reasons if at all to ban female circumcision?
Brief Background
Female circumcision (FC) involves partial or total excision of the external parts of female genitalia. It is a surgical procedure "often performed without anesthetic under septic conditions by lay practitioners with little or no knowledge of human anatomy or medicine. Female circumcision can cause death or permanent health problems as well as severe pain. Despite these grave risks, its practitioners look on it as an integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity, and some perceive it as a religious obligation".
Although female circumcision has been practiced for centuries and even predates religions like Islam and Christianity, a brief review of the pertinent literature reveals that the discussion or debate over female circumcision is relatively recent: Latter part of the 20th century (1950/60). At the time, the main focus and line of argument of opponents of female circumcision was, rightly so, the barbaric method used and the grave and fatal medical consequences associated with it. But this line of argument was soon defeated because medicalization proved to be the solution to all the legitimate medical concerns raised. After the defeat of the first line of argument, opponents of FC sought and found a second line of argument. While the first line of argument was perfectly legit and made absolute sense, the second line of argument was all SUBJECTIVE: Like the invocation of 'right of children', 'human right' or 'violence against women' etc.
Though there is a universal agreement on the basic tenets in this regard including freedom of speech as part of human right, they are not absolute. The degrees to which those declarations are upheld in practice vary greatly from one nation to another. People/nations have their own take on the matter influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings when it comes to the details. What is a violation of human right to some may or may not be considered as such to others, and what some consider as 'violence against woman' may be considered by others as a mechanism to protect women from being turned into objects in service of male entertainment and pleasure fantasies. What is a violation of 'right of child' to some, may be considered as fulfillment of obligation or part of being member of the family/ethnic group to others. That is all subjective because we don't all share the same belief, feeling, cultural heritage, or ethnicity. Hence, there is no right/wrong or bad/good religion, feeling, culture/cultural heritage, or ethnicity. We don't need to accept each other's peculiarities but we need to be able to respect and live with that. By the same token, there is nothing right/wrong about female circumcision, either.
With medical/health concerns out of the way, female circumcision is no different than any other non-therapeutic (not done for medical reasons) surgical intervention. Hence, there is no reason for not accepting female circumcision as such. All other reasons are then subjective and thus cannot be grounds to ban female circumcision or any other surgical procedure for that matter.
Case in point
On 4 April 2007, the government in Eritrea issued a proclamation banning female circumcision. The reason "female circumcision is a procedure that seriously endangers the health of women, cause them considerable pain and suffering besides threatening their lives"
This line of argument, though legitimate and real, is obsolete because 'medicalization" has indubitably rendered it moot long ago. With that, Proclamation 158/2007 has lost its Raison d'Ętre and justification.
Q & A
Q: Is female circumcision necessary?
A: There is no universal answer to that, it is Yes and No. Female circumcision is a non-therapeutic surgical intervention no different than all other such surgeries (Nose, chin, eye, breast, sex-change etc) thus this is a question that every family has to answer for itself because like all other non-therapeutic surgeries, this is a personal decision. The government or anyone else has no business telling others what their personal decision should or should not be. All people have sovereignty over their personal decisions.
Q: Does the government have the right to ban female circumcision at all?
A: Unless there is a public health issue that cannot be resolved medically, the answer is No: 1) As a matter of governance, the government is the executive branch hence has no business legislating laws. That is the job of the legislative branch of government like parliament or house of representative. 2) As stated above, FC is a personal/family decision and government has no business in interfering in people personal decisions.
Q: Does the government have any valid reasons if at all to ban female circumcision?
A: The only reason given by governmental authorities in Eritrea to ban FC is sheer medical and that is no valid because medicalization has rendered that moot long ago.
Q: This is a matter of human rights, isn't it?
A: Yes, it is indeed a matter of human rights. But human rights is not a one-way street.The right of people to have FC done if they so choose is a matter of human rights too?
Q: So, what now?
A: 1)Unless the government wants to enforce it by force, Proclamation 158/2007 has no Raison d'Ętre and justification: Medical reasons are moot and others reasons are subjective. It needs to be undone or at least frozen. Instead, I call upon the governmental authorities in Eritrea to launch a campaign to encourage the people to go to the nearest health center and to allow them to preserve their rightful cultural heritage under sanitary, safe, and pain free condition.
2) Make FC optional: Let families decide whether or not to get it done
"FGM is a deep rooted culture and it needs a persistent continuous effort (to halt it)," Luul Ghebreab, president of National Union of Eritrean Women, told Reuters."We do not believe (this ban) will automatically eradicate circumcision, but surely it will play a role." Ms Luul is not talking about technicalities, here. She is talking about popular resistance against an arbitrary law that is trying to force them to abandon something they are rightly entitled to (Article 21 below) and which they consider as integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity, and some even perceive it as religious obligation, against their will and wishes. Why all that when there is no reason for it? The people of Eritrea cannot stand up to the military might of the government in Eritrea. They can only hope for better times. May God/Allah help them? Amen!
Article 21 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
Responsibilities
(4) The State and society shall have the responsibility of identifying, preserving, developing, when necessary, and bequeathing to succeeding generation historical and cultural heritage; (The National Constitution of Eritrea, adopted July 1996 and ratified in 1997)
This is neither endorsement of nor opposition to Female circumcision. It is an effort to find valid reason(s) to ban FC because medical and human rights reasons don't hold water for they are moot and subjective respectively.
PS: I use the term female circumcision (FC) consciously not only because that was the term used by the proclamation but also because that is the term I prefer to use for it is neutral and means exactly what it accomplishes: Partial or total excision of the external parts of a genital organ. The term 'FGM' is abusive; what is mutilation to some could be the norm to others and I don't want to get involved in that.
Author can be reached at bmtekeste@yahoo.com
|
| |
