Posted on 05/23/2017 10:44:34 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
The lawyers for the Michigan FGM doctors charged with performing the barbaric procedures on young Muslim girls are saying these Muslim doctors are not guilty and are being persecuted because of their religion.
Under Islamic law (sharia), they are not guilty. Under Western law, they are monsters.
One of the girls told FBI investigators that she screamed out in pain during the procedure, while another young girl said she couldnt walk for a few days after having her clitoris mutilated.
The doctors claimed they didnt cut the clitorises, but nicked them instead. Its a distinction without difference. Perhaps they are taking this tack because the American Academy proposed a resolution to sanction a ritual [clitoral] nick back in 2010. As I warned at the time, and we see now how right I was, such a resolution would give Islamic misogyny the seal of approval by the American Academy of Pediatrics, no less. The sanction of clitordectomies, the sanction and norming of evil. We defeated that proposal, but female genital mutilation continued apace because of the increase in Muslim immigration.
These prosecutions against female genital mutilation doctors are long overdue.
FGM fact sheet: The number of women and girls at risk for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States has more than doubled in the past 10 years. More than half a million women and girls in the U.S. are at risk of undergoing FGM in the U.S. or abroad, or have already undergone the procedure, including 166,173 under the age of 18, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB).
Dissemblers and deceivers claim that FGM is cultural phenomenon, not religious. FGM is an Islamic cultural phenomenon. FGM is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities. (source: Gerry Mackie, Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account, American Sociological Review).
Unlike male circumcision, female genital mutilation has no health benefits for girls and women.
Somebody correct me - I seem to recall someone telling me that female circumcision is okay with the muslins, but male circumcision is not.
Napier opposed sati. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. Sati was rare in Sindh during the time Napier stayed in this region. Napier judged that the immolation was motivated by profits for the priests, and when told of an actual Sati about to take place, he informed those involved that he would stop the sacrifice. The priests complained to him that this was a customary religious rite, and that customs of a nation should be respected. As recounted by his brother William, he replied:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
It’s a RIGHT? For Whom? Certainly not for the mutilation VICTIM! In the minds of those heathen Muslim butchers DOING the mutilation, it may be a RITE. But it most certainly isn’the a RIGHT.
So they can mutilate girls but I can’t pray before a football game?
I like it.
Problem is, in our pathetic case we allow the act, then allow THEM to sue US so they WON’T get the punishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.