STOCKHOLM, Sweden - When she was 11, a Swedish-born girl was taken on vacation to her mother's native Somalia. The mother wanted to "make her daughter clean" and paid a man to cut off her daughter's clitoris and labia while two women held her down.
Afterward, the girl was stitched to her urethra.

No anesthesia was used.

Last year, at age 19, a Swedish court convicted the mother for those illegal acts, awarding the victim record demages.

Good news that religious freedom laws aren't getting in the way of prosecuting this hideous act.


Link: Thanks Jack for pointing out the missing link.

Views: 109

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. It's time we pulled out the stops to end these despicable crimes against women in the name religion and mythical sky fairies!
Anyone who allows or causes male or female circumcision to be inflicted upon their child should be prosecuted to the maximum.
Yep. This is mutilation, plain and simple.
Question: would male circumcision fall into the same category to you?

Ugh, I expect this could be a can of worms, but what the heck! =D

I read something about this in my critical thinking college course. Apparently there are quite a lot of horrible accidents that have happened as the result of circumcision, some so bad that the doctors suggested the parents raise their son as a girl to avoid the mess! I've heard of potiental benefits to male circumcision but for the moment it sounds like the jury is still out.

The fact that it's done against the child's will is pretty disturbing to me. My step brother was very badly shaken when he realized he'd been circumcised. He thought all boys looked like that from birth. I felt bad for him.
I'd take the argument even further: even if there was a definitive benefit, I don't think it is acceptable. There is a definitive benefit to breast removal, but we aren't doing that anytime soon.

To be fair though, I am circumcised and don't really care either way. I guess it is hard to miss what you never had (in living memory).
I've heard of potiental benefits to male circumcision but for the moment it sounds like the jury is still out.

Opinions are changing on that and they're now discovering that those beliefs actually aren't true (enhancement of sexual pleasure) and the opposite may be the case.

There are occasionally medical reasons to perform one but those are not common.

It's an unnecessary practice albeit no where near as horrendous as female circumcision.
Assault, child abuse, so many wonderful crimes from this religious practice.
It's awful. What possible use could this have? I seriously can't see a reason - even a so-called "religious" one.
General consensus among people who support FGM is that in order for a woman to remain chaste, her clitoris must be removed; this way, the source of her passions is gone and she won't go off cheating on her husband or losing her virginity before marriage, which instantly renders her non-marriage material in the first place. It's a brutal and inhumane form of gender control within a patriarchy. So ultimately, you get the stories of women who feel "honoured" and proud to have had their clitorises hacked off because it gives them social elevation; the non-cut are considered whores, dirty and, in rural towns, do not survive very long.

The risks associated with FGM are high and ominous; most girls aren't even lucky (if you can dare call it that) to undergo the procedure in a hospital with tools exclusively designed for that purpose.
This is an insane practice/belief. Woo-hoo for religious nut-cases.
'Priest, people become happy when this is touched.'

'Cut it off.'

This is another one of those 'happiness is a sin' kind of practices that deserve disdain.

Also, do you have the original article link somewhere?


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service