Multiculturalism

It isn't likely, as far as I am aware, my question doesn't rely on it being likely: it just relies on the notion that the punishment is sufficient to deter hospital treatment for any gunshot wounds that rapists suffer in the commission of their crime, however rare that is. Fine. We'll just make do with the views that FGM is not in the child's best interest. As such I repeat the point: Slicing pieces off the labia for no medical reason is not necessary or mandatory - nor is there any particularly compelling argument that it is in the child's interests.If you want to argue there is a compelling argument, bring it on. If not, my point stands.

It doesn't. However, if a step to avoid being caught is 'don't commit the crime' that is deterrence. If people fear the consequences that is evidence the consequences are feared - avoiding being caught shows a certain fear of the consequences. This shows a deterrence effect. To what extent the deterrence stops certain specific instances of crime being committed cannot be inferred from this evidence, naturally. Sure - so what escalation occurs with regards to FGM prohibition in countries where it is prohibited that we need concern ourselves with? If murder and high speed chases aren't examples - what are?

Are you saying you looked at where I cited that evidence and you couldn't see it? Like in Message 164? OK. And in answer to my question? Well the raw benefit is income tax of course. If we regard their median income as $20,000 then each would pay $2,500 in income taxes and social security. That represents over half a billion in taxes for the quarter million Africans who have entered on this scheme. Rough figures and doesn't account for everything so let's call this an upper bound. Naturally, it is likely some State benefits may be acquired as a result which would also draw this number downwards. But then - Sales Tax and additional consumers in general.It's harder to quantify the value of being seen as the cultural melting pot where peoples of all around the world exchange ideas and create hybrid sub-cultures. It may have benefits in trade and other diplomacy, I suppose. It may be regarded as a benefit or a flaw that legitimately earned money is being sent into Africa by immigrants - as this helps those nations in prosperity which is meant to make global trade more lucrative, a trade market the US is a large benefactor of. If families are receiving remittance may see America as a land of opportunity and blessings, not wanting to enter warfare or terrorist activities against America for fear of losing that income and they may join their friends and family boosting Americas working tax paying consumers further.So there's that. What do you suppose the cost of the 25% of the bushmeat trade is? I get that risks exist, but how significant a risk are we talking here? Do you think that the DV lottery winners, who typically start with low paying jobs (But that isn't always long term) are contributing a full 25% of a trade in illegally smuggled delicacies? How much is it in the US? I found one random example that put it at a little over 20/kg which is 2-4 times more than most meat costs. If this is representative, the lower income workers are likely to be partaking in it less often than the doctors and lawyers.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I saw it. But I don't see how it is a benefit of Multiculturalism. It is just an example of Multiculturalism. Why do you think it is a benefit? These benefits, as shallow as they are, relate more to immigration in general and not Multiculturalism. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Assimilation isn't a benefit? Start with answering my questions.

The fact that women who have had FGM are campaigning for the right to FGM suggests that it should be in a separate category from "abuse".

I have brought it on and you keep ignoring it: Women who have had the procedure are campaigning for the right to have the procedure done. They think there is a compelling argument, based on their culture.

The most obvious problem with driving FGM underground is the conditions under which it is practiced. My attitude toward FGM is similar to my attitude toward abortion: I'm not "in favour" of either but prohibition is not going to stop either from happening, so I would prefer to see both done under proper medical conditions.

If you won't bring that compelling argument here I can't discuss it with you, can I? Here is what the women say. (DHS, MICS and Sudan Household Health Survey, 1997─2012.)Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, but that's not an argument that stands by itself, clearly. Welcome to Message 358, which was one of the arguments I raised with regards to this very position. You responded to it tersely, but since you are simply bringing the point back up again, I guess I can only refer you back there.

quote:

---

At one time, advocates believed that allowing trained medical
personnel to carry out the procedure would result in a
more hygienic environment with less severe cutting. Some
proposed this strategy as a first step to abandonment of the
practice. However, no evidence supports this strategy, nor
does it necessarily make it safer. In fact, sanctioning health
care providers to perform the practice can contribute to
legitimizing the practice and lead to financial and professional
interest by providers to uphold it. Dr. Abelhadi El-Tahir, a
physician from Sudan who has worked for abandonment
for years, argues that medicalization should be eschewed
as it only validates the practice by providing the veneer of
medical approval while ignoring the human rights violations.

​

Moreover, it has been opposed on the grounds that it is
medically unethical and, in most countries, also goes against
the law (see Box 5).

---

ENDING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/CUTTING LESSONS FROM A DECADE OF PROGRESS - www.prb.orgHave you abandoned the 'To avoid getting caught, criminals are more likely to shoot witnesses, to get involved in high-speed chases' argument against prohibition now? What makes you think that prohibition is not going to help to stop FGM? Do you have any evidence to support this notion? Other than fatuous claim that since it still occurs with a frequency greater than 0 therefore legal prohibition is ineffective.FGM appears to be becoming less common over time a relatively sharp effect which seems to have started about 20 years ago. Around about the time an international effort that included the criminalisation of the procedure

quote:

---

- wider international involvement to stop FGM;
- international monitoring bodies and resolutions that condemn the practice;
- revised legal frameworks and growing political support to end FGM (this includes a law against FGM in 24 African countries, and in several states in two other countries, as well as 12 industrialized countries with migrant populations from FGM practicing countries);
- in most countries, the prevalence of FGM has decreased, and an increasing number of women and men in practising communities support ending its practice.

---

The support for the results of which can be found here (UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change, UNICEF, New York, 2013, p. 101.)
And, as noted, in countries where it is illegal, where cutters are harder to find by those that want to pay for a cutting because they are underground, where the culture is strongly opposed to it and the national dialogue is heavily against the practice and the society can use the law and human rights principles to shore up their position ... the prevalence among those with a cultural heritage of doing it is reduced, sometimes quite severely.

quote:

---

While laws are important for changing behavior, they are
unlikely to result in changes in behavior and social norms
all by themselves. Where social norms dictate that people
continue the practice as part of social norms, laws without
proper interventions at the community level can force the
practice underground and communities will be reluctant to
stop.

​

However, when combined with consensus building
and community-level education campaigns that address
broader social norms, and with dissemination of the legal
information, legal reform can become an effective element
in a broader effort to abandon the practice.

​

Experience from Burkina Faso has demonstrated how
a combination of long-term political will, community
education involving many sectors of society, mass media
campaigns, and establishment of support services can lead
to a reduction in support for the practice.

​

In the 1990s, the government of Burkina Faso established the National
Committee for the Campaign against Excision (CNLPE)
to lead the anti-FGM/C effort by actively coordinating
with law enforcement, local political and religious leaders,
medical personnel, youth, and women’s associations. The
government committed resources for enforcement of the
law and support for families that wished to abstain from the
practice. A 2008 analysis following the 20-year government
campaign showed that there had been a reduction in
support for the practice and an apparent decline in
prevalence among girls ages 0 to 10, compared to older
girls and women.

​

In the 2010 DHS for Burkina Faso, even
though the overall prevalence remains high at 76 percent,
90 percent of women think the practice should stop.

---

quote:

---

A strong human rights framework should be included in
all interventions.
A strong human rights framework should
be a part of FGM/C abandonment efforts. Interventions that
focus only on the negative health aspects of the practice have
sometimes led to medicalization of the practice. Recognition
of FGM/C as a violation of girls’ and women’s human rights
is essential in FGM/C interventions and discussions with
communities.

​

...
Governments must commit to comprehensive
implementation of the law.
The implementation of laws
banning the practice of FGM/C represents significant
progress over the past decade. However, there is an urgent
need to galvanize political will and commitment at all levels of
government, including ministries of health, justice, women’s
affairs, youth, and education, to implement the existing
laws. Governments must work to educate communities
about the law and invest in its implementation at the local
level. However, these laws can have a negative impact
in some communities, and must be complemented with
comprehensive community-level interventions

---

(prb.org)Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't need to try to convince you of anything. You need to explain why the opinion of the women themselves should be ignored. Your own reference shows that a very large number of women "think FGM/C should continue".

I'm not proposing anything to encourage abandonment of the practice. I'm proposing that as long as a practice exists, our society should be working to make it safer. I'm just going by every other case of prohibition that I know of: alcohol, marijuana, etc. There is some question whether prohibition reduces the frequency of the practice at all and there is little doubt that it fosters a criminal underclass. If you have any evidence of any practice being eliminated by prohibition, I'm all ears. I'm not surprised that a practice can be reduced by oppressing minorities - but the question in this thread seems to be whether oppression of minorities is good for society.

I don't think it's fair to criticize me for ignoring something that isn't presented in the discussion. I think it's easy reject 'cleanliness', 'marriageability' and 'Islam' as arguments for example. But if you think there are others I'm missing please present them. But it seems to suggest that a larger number of women think it should end. Really, the only countries in that list where the majority is for it continuing is Egypt, Gambia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Mali. The rest are either 50/50 ish or against it. Therefore, you need to explain why the opinion of the women themselves should be ignored.

We are - by trying to eradicate it. Which protects more girls from the ill effects than medicalizing it ever would as I explained and you didn't comment on. Rape, murder, child abuse, robbery, hitting children with canes and paddles, child labour, slavery, refusing to serve black people from your public shop... Already answered in my previous post which you ignored. This isn't a discussion unless you address my arguments and evidence and present your own to counter them. You can explain what you mean by this if you want. You can address my comments on that subject first, I think. They're in the post you just replied to. What oppression? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So if a majority of women prefer coffee we should ban tea?I'm only asking you to respect the opinion of a minority.