Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 detroit fgm case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2017 detroit fgm case

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04...mment-13844957

    A Detroit emergency room doctor is being accused of performing “female genital mutilation” procedures on girls as young as six years old. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala has been arrested and charged in federal court.



    ---
    It is a tragety.
    If she were a male in america this sadly wouldn’t be news, it’d be tuesday. Even when a male is botched so badly penis and testicles are completely lost, or it results in his death, there is never any news coverage.
    In 1996, the usa passed the U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 so that anything between a pin prick and full removal and sewing closed since there’s more than just 1 type of genital mutilation these sick people performed on either sex! This is a wonderful piece of legislation, except than it doesn’t afford equal protection to everyone.
    It’s absurd to argue against one persons rights because you can selectively find someone who you feel was slighted more than this person was, especially when millions of them were slighned. That’s not how the 14th amendment is supposed to work.
    If it’s criminal assault to touch or harm the genitals of anyone, unless they’re a minor, and a male. Then you can mutilate away, because parents can let some sick person remove 60% of their sensitivity, natural function, gliding ability, frenar band, Meissner’s Corpuscles, Dartos Fascia, length and girth, natural roverage, Langerhans Cells… that’s ok, he’s a boy, they don’t grow up to be REAL people with rights to body integrety.
    As a fellow genital mutilation victim, i wish her the best possible healing, and i’m glad her mutilator will have the opportunity to face charges. I hope someday everyone will be protected.
    This place gets too negative. Join date / post count

  • #2
    I cam across this very good discussion about the issues surrounding this case, well worth a read:

    http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...zing-morality/

    Regards

    Comment


    • #3
      https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...tor/910764002/

      If convicted, Nagarwala and the Attars each face up to five years in prison on the female genital mutilation and conspiracy charges. ...For mutilating up to 100 girls.

      Grasping at straws, they're trying to say it's unconstitutional and congress

      didn't have authority to pass it since it doesn't effect interstate commerce.

      The case is set to go to trial in January 2019.
      This place gets too negative. Join date / post count

      Comment


      • #4
        Lets hope the trial jails the perpetrators and hands out massive compensation to the victims.
        This is absolutely disgusting, when will the USA ban genital mutilation for both sex's?

        People need to address the religious motivation behind it and judges need to hand out harsh jail penalties - even for those involved that opt for travel surgeries.
        Watched previously a UK documentary on young women recounting these ordeals and worse & it was very sad.
        Some have guts to leave both their parents and their parents religion when they became legal adults.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, here is the ruling for now, disappointing:

          https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/66994...u-s-constituti

          Regards

          Comment


          • #6
            One of my aunts (who had her son's genitals mutilated as a baby) posted this story on Facebook, noting how shocking it was that FGM could be allowed. I was so tempted to point out the hypocrisy in this, but opted not to.

            Comment


            • #7
              This ruling does have a silver lining. The judge ruled the ban law unconstitutional because the law violates the 14th amendment by only including females. This very ruling could be the impetus to change the law to include males as well and therefore become constitutional. Question is : Will the groups that oppose FGM have the moral fortitute and balls to run with it?

              Comment


              • #8
                That is a good point, parsecskin. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

                Regards

                Comment


                • #9
                  We ALL need to drive this point home any way we can. Mention this fact in the comments on EVERY article you see about this. If it catches on, it will go viral and will happen!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                    The judge ruled the ban law unconstitutional because the law violates the 14th amendment by only including females.
                    Not exactly.

                    States have the duty to make generic crimes illegal. It's just not a power given to the federal government in the constitution. An exception would be stuff that affects interstate or international affairs. So there happens to be a treaty that entreats all signatories to protect citizens from discrimination, and that could be used as a justification to let this intervention at the federal level stand. But the treaty - the judge said - is insufficient grounds for federal intervention BECAUSE it calls for non-discrimination, while the law was protecting females only. Now, that treaty was signed ONLY by other countries that have also outlawed only female genital cutting, and so the obvious intent of the treaty was to protect females from the discrimination of forced genital cutting because of their traditionally vulnerable position in society. The judge blew it (another way of saying he applied the law and evidence until it supported his pre-disposed conservative inclinations, then stopped).
                    -Ron Low
                    [email protected]
                    847 414-1692 Chicago

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The judge also said FGM is not a matter of interstate commerce, while the facts of THIS case are indeed about interstate transport of minors to procure FGM service. A liberal judge would have ruled completely the other way.

                      AND the judge says federal-level statutes - about the behavior of protesters at abortion clinics - are allowable but not comparable to this case, because the abortion protest movement is a national orchestrated thing (affecting interstate commerce). To say that, he has to ignore the national protests ongoing - about ALL forced genital cutting - that are staged by Intact America and Bloodstained Men.
                      -Ron Low
                      [email protected]
                      847 414-1692 Chicago

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The justice dept has announced they won't challenge judge Friedman's ruling on the Michigan FGM case. That's a shame because people who follow intactivism can see how silly Friedman's logic is. And by the way, Bernhard Friedman is the SAME judge from another case that went against intactivists years ago. Steven Svoboda and colleagues had him in a class action circumcision case in Queens, New York in 2002. Steven wrote about the 2002 case in his 2006 NoCirc symposium presentation, "A Treatise from the Trenches: Why Are Circumcision Lawsuits So Hard to Win?"

                        If Judge Friedman had some exotic unstated motivation like protecting male forced genital cutting, that adds up. Why else would his ruling be SO baseless and full of holes? For example:
                        = = = = =
                        In the present case write-up, Friedman cites a standing federal law which restricts conduct while protesting at abortion clinics. One of the things that allowed the federal law to stand as valid (because it dealt with interstate commerce) was the fact that the abortion protest movement involved nationwide organizations.

                        Are there not national and international organizations protesting forced genital cutting such as what happened in Michigan? Intact America is certainly on record protesting the AAP's endorsement of FGC. Do not The Bloodstained Men travel from state to state to follow the AAP and ACOG and remind them to END ALL forced genital cutting?
                        = =
                        In the present case write-up, Friedman cites a law prohibiting child-porn and a law restricting home-grown marijuana. The federal law is allowed to stand because - even though the defendant's behavior would have trivial impact on interstate commerce - there is a real interstate market in those commodities.

                        Are not the facts of the Michigan case - that a family arranged to cross state lines to buy FGM services - proof that there is an interstate market for FGM services?
                        = =
                        In the present case write-up, the prosecution says the federal government has the power to regulate health care - and this case involves doctors using commercially available medical instruments. The judge says NO; that FGM is never health care, it is a crime.

                        This actually sets a precedent for allowing a federal law that would protect EVERYONE EXCEPT females, since the contention is always that male and intersex genital cutting are legitimate medical choices parents get to make.
                        = =
                        In the present case write-up, Friedman relies on the fact that "There is no suggestion that the procedure is done for money" which is CRAZY. First, it is done for money even in this case. Second, AAP's doctors WANTED to start doing it for money, but at the time they proposed this in 2010, they (and everyone else) believed it was illegal. The interstate market IS there, which is why the law was created.
                        = =
                        In the present case write-up, Friedman correctly asserts that the conduct of the defendants could be "prosecuted in every state under existing criminal sexual conduct statutes, to say nothing of battery or child abuse statutes. The government’s suggestion that 'those seeking the procedure [can] travel to refuge states where the practice is not prohibited' is simply false. (Gov’t’s Brief at 33, 43. No state offers refuge to those who harm children.)"

                        This would seem to be an instruction for the Michigan prosecutor to pick up the ball and throw the book at these defendants for unlawful touching and poking, and medical malpractice, and assault and wounding. Not sure if that is allowed under double-jeopardy rules, though.
                        = =
                        The judge is basically instructing states (even those without FGM laws) to proceed with charges for standard assault and wounding, and sexual-probing-of-minors type violations.

                        That would be a welcome change, as the 14th amendment would definitely not allow selective protection of just one gender. And it also wouldn't allow a law that left a child unprotected based on his family's religion.
                        = =
                        The treaty that Judge Friedman said is insufficient grounds for federal intervention - because it calls for non-discrimination, while the ensuing law protects females only - is signed ONLY by other countries that have also outlawed female-only genital cutting, and so the obvious intent of the treaty was to protect females from the discrimination of forced cutting because of their traditionally vulnerable position in society.

                        The "unconstitutionality" ruling is so full of holes prosecutors could indeed prevail in an appeal.

                        A liberal judge could have ruled completely the other way, with at least as much support from the constitution and from precedents in case law.
                        -Ron Low
                        [email protected]
                        847 414-1692 Chicago

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X