“Earlier this year, a 7-year-old girl from Minnesota entered an examination room at a clinic just outside of Detroit. Thinking this was a regular visit, she allowed the doctor to remove her pants and underwear and place her on the examination table. Suddenly, while two women in the clinic held her hands, the physician spread her legs and cut her clitoris.” *
by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired
It’s hard to read an article that starts like this. This butchering of a 7 year old took place not in Somalia or Ethiopia, but right here in the US in a clinic outside Detroit Michigan. The doctor that cut this young child’s clitoris (in the video below) has been charged with conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation. I am not sure what the difference is between conspiracy to commit and committing an offense really is but one can only feel horror and anger that this young child was savaged in this way.
The author of this WSJ commentary Kristina Arriaga quotes a study claiming that 500,000 girls in the US “have undergone the procedure or are at risk”. When doctors can’t be found she points out, then fathers have performed the butchery with scissors and other sharp objects and often take their children to other countries where the process is legal. A Unicef report claims that at least 200 million girls and women in 30 countries have been subjected to some form of genital mutilation.
In the case in Michigan, the victim, or her parents I would guess, belong to a religious sect that claims the clitoris is a “sinful lump of flesh” and they remove it in order to prevent a woman form becoming promiscuous.
The doctor’s legal team in this case is arguing that this attack on the doctor (and the girl’s family I suppose) is a violation of religious freedom. The author of the piece disputes this and has her view of what religious freedom actually is but what’s interesting is who is representing the doctor and defending religious freedom, the freedom to mutilate and torture a young child. Alan Dershowitz, the famed lawyer who was involved on the OJ case is on the team. Dershowitz is an ardent Zionist and defender of Zionist atrocities against Palestinians.
Politics makes Strange Bedfellows
It does not take rocket science to figure out why Dershowitz is keen to defend this butchery. As a Jew he is concerned that male genital mutilation, what we call circumcision, is at risk if this case loses. Here is Dershowitz, and another Jewish lawyer, Mayer Morganroth, whose services are being funded by an international Muslim organization that supports the genital mutilation of young girls.
There can be no doubt in my mind that it is the barbaric rite of male circumcision that Dershowitz is concerned about. I wrote a piece condemning circumcision some years ago and a few people attacked me for the same reasons, I was threatening religious freedom and also, some hinted I was bordering on anti-semitism.
So Dershowitz, who has no love for the Muslims in Israel/Palestine, is taking Muslim money to defend their right to mutilate this young child’s genitalia and his to mutilate his sons. He is also concerned about its continuing legality as there have been some cases where in religious circumcision, done by a Mohel in the Jewish faith, the baby has contracted hepatitis or infections due to some sucking procedure the Mohel does. There were court cases about this in New York City, I suggest the reader Google it.
In Britain when I grew up, circumcision (except for religious reasons) was not so common. Most of the boys I grew up with were not circumcised. I still get a little irritated when people defend it on the basis that it is this “extra flap of skin”. It’s “extra” is it? Then they claim it is a hygiene issue. That’s a fine defense for genital cutting. I accept that circumcision does not destroy young men or turn them in to monsters. My problem is that the child has no say. It is not simply a physical assault on the child it is a legal one as well, they do not get to decide what is happening to them, a surgical procedure performed solely because of mythological religious scripts. I don't believe in religious freedom when it is used in this way. I believe a person has a right to believe in gods and be free of persecution for it not free to mutilate a child.
I would bet on this. If this supernatural god-force told Abraham that all his male descendants should be circumcised when they reach the age of 25, there would be a lot more foreskins out there.
* Cutting Young Girls Isn’t Religious Freedom. The First Amendment doesn’t protect the barbaric act of female genital mutilation. Kristina Arriaga WSJ 8-24-17