Global Jurist Frontiers Volume 8, Issue 3 2008 Article 8 Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism? Abdulmumini A. Oba∗ ∗University of Ilorin, [email protected] Recommended Citation Abdulmumini A. Oba (2008) “Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism?,” Global Jurist: Vol. 8: Iss. 3 (Frontiers), Article 8. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/gj/vol8/iss3/art8 Copyright c 2008 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism?∗ Abdulmumini A. Oba Abstract Many have discussed female circumcision from the perspective of cultural relativism. This paper places the discourse in the context of Western cultural imperialism. The definition of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the World Health Organization (WHO) is questioned as being partial and amounting to cultural profiling. The paper interrogates the case against female circumcision and reviews anti-female circumcision treaties and legislations at international and domestic levels across the world. A case of cultural imperialism against the West is argued by questioning the non-inclusion by WHO of some western practices such as ‘female genital surgeries’ or ‘female genital cuttings’ in its definition of FGM. Other female bodily mutilations such as breast augmentation should be in- dicted too. Again, the failed Seattle compromise emphatically illustrates the cultural imperialism inherent in the campaign against female circumcision. The campaign against female circumcision is diverting focus from third world’s pressing social and economical travails which arise from the exploitation and manipulation of its economy by the West. Criminalization of female circumcision is counter-productive - the fight against FGM must be based on credible facts and enlightenment. KEYWORDS: female circumcision, female genital mutilation, female genital surgeries, cultural imperialism ∗Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. e-mail: [email protected]. Oba: Female Circumcision as FGM: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism? I. INTRODUCTION The charge of cultural imperialism in relation to human rights generally and women rights in particular is often made against the West.1 There are three major reasons for this. First, the West is quick to condemn practices in other cultures that it considers unacceptable. This condemnation is sometimes without any real justification. Secondly, the West is guilty of double standard in relation to some of its own practices and practices in other cultures. Practices in other cultures which are similar or comparable to accepted practices in the West and which ought to be treated similarly are often treated differently. The western practices are considered as “civilized” while the non-western practices are condemned as “primitive” or “savage”. Thirdly, whenever the West attempts to eradicate a non- western practice it considers undesirable or wrong, its actions too often come in form of external impositions rather than encouragement of internal critique within the local culture.2 There has been a lot of negative publicity and campaign against female circumcision in the West where the practice has been labeled as “female genital mutilation”. Female circumcision has both cultural and religious significance. Culturally, it is a “problem” of non-western peoples from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa and in terms of religion; it is an “Islamic” problem. 3 The female circumcision discourse in the West fits into the paradigm of accusations of cultural imperialism against the West. Although, some place the differences between the West and non-western peoples on female circumcision in 1 See Rachelle Cassman, Fighting to Make the Cut: Female Genital Cutting Studied within the Context of Cultural Relativism 6 (1) NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS 128 at 141 (2007) citing Beth Ann Gillia, Female Genital Mutilation: A Form of Persecution, 27 NEW MEXICO LAW REVIEW 579, at 585 (1997). 2 Michael J. Perry, Are Human Rights Universal? The Relativist Challenge and Related Matters 19 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY 466 at 487 - 497 (1997) and Cassman, supra note 1, 140 – 141. See further discussions infra. 3 The World Health Organization (WHO) says, “Most of the girls and women who have undergone genital mutilation live in 28 African countries, although some live in Asia and the Middle East. They are also increasingly found in Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA, primarily among immigrants from these countries”: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO), FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION FACT SHEET NO. 241, JUNE 2000 at http://www.who.int/topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/. To these the Amnesty International adds the “Muslim populations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia [and] ... in India, a small Muslim sect, the Daudi Bohra”: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION – A HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION PACK at http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm. Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 1 Global Jurist, Vol. 8 [2008], Iss. 3 (Frontiers), Art. 8 the context of cultural relativism,4 we consider that cultural imperialism is the appropriate context. The cultural relativism argument is self-defeating for female circumcision. Beyond doubt, culture alone cannot be a valid justification for human wrongs and cultural relativism cannot sanctify human rights violation.5 This paper examines why the female circumcision discourse in the West fits into the paradigm of cultural imperialism. The paper neither canvasses for the abolition of nor justifies the practice of female circumcision. It only interrogates the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) discourse in the West by examining the manner western critics and their non-western allies have justified their condemnation of female circumcision. It also juxtaposes this with the attitude in the West to similar western practices. Part I of this paper looks at the World Health Organization’s definition and classification of FGM. The part questions the legitimacy and accuracy of these classifications. Part II analyzes the case against Female circumcision. Part III reviews the international human rights documents and domestic legislation across the world against FGM. Part IV makes a case of cultural imperialism against the West by contrasting its uncompromising and total condemnation of the non-western practice of female circumcision with the female genital surgeries legally permitted in the West. The paper concludes with Part V. II. INTERROGATING THE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION The World Health Organisation (WHO) lumped together all forms of female circumcision under the category of “female genital mutilation” and takes both terms as synonyms. According to the organization: “Female genital mutilation” (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non- therapeutic reasons.6 4 Eva Brems, Enemies or Allies? Feminism and Cultural Relativism as Dissident Voices in Human Rights Discourse, 19 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY 136 at 148 (1997). 5 Perry, supra note 2. 6 WHO: “Female Genital Mutilation” Fact Sheet No. 241, supra note 3. http://www.bepress.com/gj/vol8/iss3/art8 2 Oba: Female Circumcision as FGM: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism? The organization enumerated the categories of the different types of ‘female genital mutilation’ as follows: • Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris; • Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora; • Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation); • Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue; scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts); and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.7 The WHO says that the most common type of FGM is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases and that the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures.8 The above classification covers a wide spectrum of practices that are now referred to erroneously as “female genital mutilation”. However, the differences between these practices can be very wide. The least under Type I is “excision of the prepuce” which involves the removal of the tip of the clitoris. Type III which is also referred to as infibulation is a very extreme practice which cannot be described as female circumcision in the sense that it goes beyond circumcision in concept and form. This is meant to preserve virginity and it is a practice restricted to parts of Sudan and Somalia. It is said that infibulation originated by an Egyptian Pharaoh who upon being warned that he will be destroyed by a boy born within a certain time ordered that all the baby boys born during that time be killed.9 Infibulation was to ensure that no woman delivers secretly because she would invariably