NationStates Jolt Archive

Female Genital Mutilation

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The General Assembly,

Observing that female genital mutilation (hereafter 'FGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Alarmed by the long-term effects of FGM, including prolonged pain and increased risk of death during childbirth,

Deeply disturbed that many women are subjected to FGM against their will,

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

1. Condemns the practice of FGM;

2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.

The resolution "Female Genital Mutilation" was passed, 14778 votes to 1360, and implemented in all UN member nations.

What is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)?

See UN Fact-Sheet#3 (http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS3.HTM)

Can education work?

From Villagers join campaigns against female genital mutilation (http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no1/171wm1.htm):

Residents of 10 Senegalese villages rallied in late October in Némanding, near the Gambian border, to openly discuss the generations-old practice of cutting girls' genitals. Joined by the local prefect, representatives of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and parliamentary deputies from both Senegal and Gambia, the participants shared their experiences of a year-long education programme in which they learned about human rights and women's health, especially the risks and dangers of female genital mutilation. The participants indicated that they soon plan to abandon the practice -- long known as female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision or excision, and in recent years also as female genital cutting.

Like those in Némanding, villagers in hundreds of locations across Africa are now openly discussing and debating FGM, once a taboo topic. Although still on a modest scale, they are increasingly giving up the practice.

Behind the ceremony in Némanding was a Senegalese non-governmental organization (NGO) called Tostan, which means "breakthrough" in the Wolof language. Already, following similar education programmes by Tostan, 708 Senegalese villages, representing 13 per cent of the total population in Senegal that observes the practice, have made public declarations abandoning FGM.

Why not ban it?

There are two reasons why I'm not proposing a ban - one philosophical and one practical. The philosophical reason is that I have rather anarchistic views, and so I believe that it's better to educate people in the hope they'll come to the same opinion as you than legislate and force your opinion on them. The practical reason is that FGM is a cultural issue, and banning it would seem like the 'advanced' cultures trying to eliminate cultures they view as 'primitive'. This causes great tensions between the cultures and can only lead to long-term problems.

What about Male Genital Mutilation?

There are three reasons why the proposal doesn't do anything about circumcision - one personal, one medical and one practical. The personal reason is that my father's side of the family are Jewish and I'd rather they didn't disown me. The medical reason is that circumcision is a necessary treatment for certain medical conditions, such as an overly tight foreskin. The practical reason is that a UN resolution perceived as anti-semitic wouldn't have a chance of passing.

[edit #1 added clause referring to previous resolutions]
[edit #2 changed title to indicate submitted status]
[edit #3 updated page number]
[edit #4 changed title to indicate approach of quorum]
[edit #5 changed title to indicate intention to resubmit]
[edit #6 changed title to indicate resubmitted status]
[edit #7 changed title to indicate approach of quorum]
[edit #8 updated page number]
[edit #9 changed title to indicate quorum being reached]
[edit #10 changed title to indicate resolution at vote status]
[edit #11 started writing FAQ]
[edit #12 added second question]
[edit #13 added third question]
[edit #14 added fourth question]
[edit #15 final touching-up]

A serious issue and one that deserves UN address. We advise you to take a look at the Child Protection Act, particularly this clause:
ARTICLE 2 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

Obviously, individual nations could regard this as grounds to ban FGM in children, but others might opt not to; it'd be worth referring to. Also refer to Universal Freedom of Choice, particularly clause 5.

(Of course, male circumcision's illegal in Rehochipe until you're twenty-one, and the only people who practise it then are our Muslim minority; the comparison to female circumcision thus has the opposite effect in our society).

Hey if you add in a provision allowing the Open Hunting and unlimited bag of offenders on those who perform this travesty as well as specify what qualifies as Female gential mutilation, as some would consider Piercing to be mutilation,

I will support it,

as I personally think a paramilitary group who goes out and Hunts, Tortures and/or KILLS these subhuman animals (note torture must occure before the killing)
would be groovy, cause Im sorry, this is just a Stupid thing to do, and warrants only the like or worse being rendered unto those who commit it.

This is another top quality resolution. Cacodaemonomania sees no flaws with it, and would particularly like to express appreciation of Safalra's accuracy of structure. Good luck in the proposal process.

We give our full support to this, as female genital mutilation is sickening. To clear up the issue of piercing falling under the category of genital mutilation, you could define the offensive genital mutilation as something like "modification to a female's genitilia against her will."

We in Callisdrun find the practice of female genital mutilation to be revolting beyone belief and we view it as a violation of human rights. We applaud Safalra's efforts to put a stop to this horrific mutilation.

Your eloquence in execution of this obvious human right is to be commended. No woman should ever be put through this. It causes many more hardships than could ever be outweighed by "any" benefits.

I would support this measure immediately.

Rmanevernight];-]

Whoa... a sane proposal... these are usually in short supply. Keep up the good work!

Good Idea!
If u submit it I will approve it (if I find it in the maze of other unworthy proposals that people contiuously ask me to approve! :x I go to a school where I spend lunches in a computer lab playing NationStates and looking after my region(just kidding! :wink: ) and one kid came up to me and asked if I was a Delegate! I said a was and then I kept being nagged by him to "Endorse meee! Endorse meee! Endorse meee! ENDORSE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Eventually I had to!). If that is true about the abuse you r talking about I am going to soooooo be freaked out but will definitely endore it!

Go for it !

We have had serious cases in our hospitals of women and girls almost
bleading to death , ongoing infections, not to mention angry fathers
who beat up doctors and nurses because they wanted their daughter back.


Medical Board of Githania

Hey if you add in a provision allowing the Open Hunting and unlimited bag of offenders on those who perform this travesty
Those who carry out FGM generally aren't sick freaks; they're generally those who've been led to believe by their culture that not practising FGM is about as socially desirable as not being toilet-trained. When you've grown up in a culture that'll look on you as unclean, unattractive and sexually voracious if you're not circumcised, and it's virtually impossible to be a member of society if you're not, people accept it unthinkingly. That doesn't mean it should be allowed - but condemning the practitioners isn't helpful.

Hey if you add in a provision allowing the Open Hunting and unlimited bag of offenders on those who perform this travesty
Those who carry out FGM generally aren't sick freaks; they're generally those who've been led to believe by their culture that not practising FGM is about as socially desirable as not being toilet-trained. When you've grown up in a culture that'll look on you as unclean, unattractive and sexually voracious if you're not circumcised, and it's virtually impossible to be a member of society if you're not, people accept it unthinkingly. That doesn't mean it should be allowed - but condemning the practitioners isn't helpful.

Um, sucks to be them?

I'm all for it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Perhaps the following clause:

Reaffirming 'Child Protection Act', article 2.1, and 'Universal Freedom Of Choice', clause 5,

Where should this clause be positioned in relation to the others?

Of course, male circumcision's illegal in Rehochipe until you're twenty-one, and the only people who practise it then are our Muslim minority;

What about in medical conditions? (I forget the name, but there is a medical condition resulting in an overly tight foreskin, which is treated by circumcision).

Hey if you add in a provision allowing the Open Hunting and unlimited bag of offenders on those who perform this travesty as well as specify what qualifies as Female gential mutilation, as some would consider Piercing to be mutilation,

Obviously if it recommended hunting of offenders than a clause saying that piercing does not counts as FGM would be necessary. However, it recommends programmes educating citizens in the dangers of FGM - if piercing is safe in a given country (only performed by people with training in sterilised conditions) than piercing would not be mentioned in the program; if piercing in unsafe in a given country (preformed by people with no training in unclean environments) then a government would be justified in advising people against it.

What about in medical conditions? (I forget the name, but there is a medical condition resulting in an overly tight foreskin, which is treated by circumcision).

Medical conditions are generally an exception to most bans. Heroin's illegal in many countries, but you can still have it pumped into you as a last-resort anaesthetic.

Given the positive reception, unless someone points out a major flaw between now and Saturday morning (GMT), I'll submit this after Saturday's UN update (about 10:00am GMT). Voting will then end on Tuesday.

Salveto omnes,

I propose to change the phrase "1. Condemns the practice of FGM;" to read "1. Prohibits the practice of FGM;". I feel a condemnation of the practice is not enough; it should be banned from all (UN member) states.

Avete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

Agreed.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I propose to change the phrase "1. Condemns the practice of FGM;" to read "1. Prohibits the practice of FGM;". I feel a condemnation of the practice is not enough; it should be banned from all (UN member) states.

You've entirely missed the point. Remember it says:

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

By educating the citizenry the practise of FGM will end. The 'do what we say, because we know better' viewpoint only leads to tension and bitterness.

(Note also that 'Prohibits' is not a valid Operative Clause.)

We agree that a complete ban in nations where this is prevalent is only going to drive the practise underground, as if it wasn't unsanitary enough already. That said, education doesn't have a brilliant track record on cultural issues such as this - observe the monumental failure of sex education in preventing the explosion of AIDS in sub-Sahel Africa.

We'd like a clause that commits governments to legislating on the issue within, say, a generation; and to strongly pushing the issue until and after that point.

You've entirely missed the point. Remember it says:

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

By educating the citizenry the practise of FGM will end. The 'do what we say, because we know better' viewpoint only leads to tension and bitterness.

(Note also that 'Prohibits' is not a valid Operative Clause.)
How do you know what I missed or not? :roll:
Regarding the point at hand: I think dealing with FGM by education and a condemnation of it alone, will not solve the issue; at least, not quickly enough. It should be stopped as soon as possible. It's very idealistic of you to think it will end by educating the people, but realistically speaking, it won't, not without backing it up with an official prohibition.
As to a ban leading to tension and bitterness: there are often many laws issued by governments who are going against the will of certain people in society, but which are issued anyway, because the government thinks it better to do so.
My goal with my proposal to change "condems" to "prohibit" was to join an official ban on the practice with the educational program as proposed in point 2.
Btw, what did you mean by your comment that "prohibits" is not a valid Operative Clause? Should I name is "bans" or any other synonym?


We agree that a complete ban in nations where this is prevalent is only going to drive the practise underground, as if it wasn't unsanitary enough already.
Fearing that a ban on something will drive it underground didn't prevent most (all?) countries issuing laws against the use drugs, or weapons etc.

observe the monumental failure of sex education in preventing the explosion of AIDS in sub-Sahel Africa.

Observe the success of UN programmes against FGM, even in countries that refused to legislate.

We'd like a clause that commits governments to legislating on the issue within, say, a generation; and to strongly pushing the issue until and after that point.

I'm not happy encouraging governments to legislate on this issue. Laws are required in cases where the would-be-criminal stands to gain from their actions. Those who perform FGM do so not to make a personal gain, but because they believe their culture requires it. Cultures can be changed without legislation.

Also, there are entire nations [OOC: probably not actually INS, but there should be for realism's sake, even if they have to non-player countries in NS RP or simply never show up in RPed events] that practice FGM, and nations where a significant portion of the population practices it; in such a situation legislation against FGM would be unenforceable, like trying to find a pickpocket in a ghetto where nobody's got a clena record and nobody will "tell" on anybody else, such as exists in certain nations. A ban is practical in nations where no indigenous culture or relatively large immigrant group practices FGM, since then it is already subject to hostile societal pressure anyway, making it much harder to hide from the authorities (not to mention you don't have the problem of having law enforcement officials disagree with the law and being deliberately lax in enforcing it).

It's very idealistic of you to think it will end by educating the people, but realistically speaking, it won't, not without backing it up with an official prohibition.

Idealistic would be thinking people will do what you want out of the good of their hearts - this is obviously nonsense, most people will act in their own self-interest. We need laws against fraud, for example, because the would-be-criminal stands to gain from their action. FGM benefits no-one, and by making people see this the practice will stop.

As to a ban leading to tension and bitterness: there are often many laws issued by governments who are going against the will of certain people in society, but which are issued anyway, because the government thinks it better to do so.

Most laws are against a group of people with no connection, other than their crime (to use the fraud example again, few fraudsters are in contact with each other). FGM is not like this - it is a societal issue, and legislating against other societies causes long-term damage - just look at the tensions between governments and 'primitive' cultures all over the world.

Btw, what did you mean by your comment that "prohibits" is not a valid Operative Clause? Should I name is "bans" or any other synonym?

Operative Clauses

Accepts
Affirms
Approves
Authorizes
Calls upon
Condemns
Congratulates
Confirms
Declares accordingly
Designates
Emphasizes
Endorses
Further invites
Further reminds
Further requests
Notes
Proclaims
Reaffirms
Recommends
Regrets
Requests
Solemnly affirms
Supports
Trusts
Takes note of
Urges

dp

Just because it isn't in the list doesn’t mean you can't use it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Yeah. The style guide is just that - a suggestion sheet. It's not comprehensive, and it doesn't forbid legislation in other styles - though it's a nice norm to follow and a lot more legible than most.

I'm thinking of submitting the following proposal, and I'd appreciate your opinions:

Female Genital Mutilation

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Observing that female genital mutilation (hereafter 'FGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Alarmed by the long-term effects of FGM, including prolonged pain and increased risk of death during childbirth,

Deeply disturbed that many women are subjected to FGM against their will,

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

1. Condemns the practice of FGM;

2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.

United Nations can only ban something, if it's not a decision made by consenting adults; Therefore, I agree as far as it concerns children. But once adult, people should be allowed FGM if by their own choosing; UN has no right to tell cultures or religions what they can or cannot do to their body, as long as it is by free choice.

United Nations can only ban something, if it's not a decision made by consenting adults; Therefore, I agree as far as it concerns children. But once adult, people should be allowed FGM if by their own choosing; UN has no right to tell cultures or religions what they can or cannot do to their body, as long as it is by free choice.

As I've said already in this thread, it doesn't ban it but instead "calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM", and that's precisely why.

I've added a clause referring to the previous resolutions, and as I mentioned the Child Protection Act, I've changed 'women' to 'girls and women'.

UN has no right to tell cultures or religions what they can or cannot do to their body, as long as it is by free choice.
Yes it does.
5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations: a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies

This sounds like a good act and the people of the Jovian Worlds support. However, to be fair we should encourage that the proposal be changed to "Ban Non-Consensual Genital Mutilation"
There is no purpose in banning only female genital mutilation. Just because there is no institutionalized male genital mutilation (save circumcision--and perhaps enforcing this even has great merit as there is no medical necessity in the practice), doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned as well. These activities must have the complete and total consensus of the person involved.

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

Chief Minister Rhys applauds this proposal and states that the Wesperosphere is in full support.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

This sounds like a good act and the people of the Jovian Worlds support. However, to be fair we should encourage that the proposal be changed to "Ban Non-Consensual Genital Mutilation"
There is no purpose in banning only female genital mutilation. Just because there is no institutionalized male genital mutilation (save circumcision--and perhaps enforcing this even has great merit as there is no medical necessity in the practice), doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned as well. These activities must have the complete and total consensus of the person involved.


Problem, this actually has DIRECT bearing upon religion. Within Judaism, male circumcision is a covenant seal between them and their God. This would actually be beyond the scope and power of the U.N. Effectively be banning their freedom to practice their religion. Well, technically, INS you could but this would be taking the NS-UN controverial proposals to an entirely new level. It would be the first time a religious PRACTICE, especially one of a fairly sizeable population, were to be attacked directly. It would be equivalent of banning prayer, or baptism etc.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

But here we run into a quandary. According to some readings of the Qu'ran (but not all), female circumcision is required in the Muslim faith. Male circumcision is also required by the Muslim faith.

I in no way am trying to justify genital mutilation, just trying to alert you to the fact that many would feel left out regardless of whether male genital mutilation is included or not.

According to some readings of the Qu'ran (but not all), female circumcision is required in the Muslim faith.
Not true. Female circumcision was around before Islam, and the only direct bearing on female circumcision is through the practise of the Prophet, who said a few things to the tune that if you had to do it you shouldn't practise the more extreme forms.

As regards the Jewish / Muslim male circumcision issue, our ban on male circumcision before 21 isn't taken to impose on the faith; after all, converts born outside the religion are circumcised on conversion. We don't consider that anyone can genuinely be a member of a religion until they're old enough to make their own mind up, and this is particularly a bad idea if it involves chopping bits off people.

If you're going to change the operative clause to 'non-consensual', be sure to clarify consensuality. There should, at the very least, be a minimum age requirement.

Although I don't like the practise of male circumcision (as I don't like any religious initiation ceremonies performed without the consent of the individual), I'm not going to write it into the resolution as it'll have no chance of being passed.

I've submitted the proposal now. It's currently on page 23. When updates/deletions move it to another page, I'll post again here, as well as editting the first post in this thread.

Yay! I was the first to formally endorse it!

Yay our region was the first to formally endorse it!

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

According to some readings of the Qu'ran (but not all), female circumcision is required in the Muslim faith.
Not true. Female circumcision was around before Islam, and the only direct bearing on female circumcision is through the practise of the Prophet, who said a few things to the tune that if you had to do it you shouldn't practise the more extreme forms.

As regards the Jewish / Muslim male circumcision issue, our ban on male circumcision before 21 isn't taken to impose on the faith[b]; after all, converts born outside the religion are circumcised on conversion. We don't consider that anyone can genuinely be a member of a religion until they're old enough to make their own mind up, and this is particularly a bad idea if it involves chopping bits off people.

If you're going to change the operative clause to 'non-consensual', be sure to clarify consensuality. There should, at the very least, be a minimum age requirement.

But it does, Jews are [b]required by dictates of that covenant to do so.
It is considered


It is a bond between God and the Jewish nation for all time. It is a bond that can never be broken.


In fact to them it is "Bris Milah"(The Covenant of Circumcision).
And all male children are required on the 8th day from birth to be circumcised under the covenent.
The concept of of Judaism, and indeed many christian groups as far as covenent is that it isn't just inclusive of the individual, but of the family as a unit.


"And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'"

Gensis 17:9-14


So you are talking about DIRECT impact on their religion, regardless of your own beliefs, their view of "religion" is different.

Here's where the problem starts, a banning just alienates, but will have ZERO effect in stopping it.... Bris Milah is performed by rabbi's not medical doctors, the law, regardless of what you think will be viewed by the Jews as contrary to God's commandment to them, and so they will simply ignore your, for the most part, unenforceable ban. In most of the nations where religious liberties are protected, they could be charged with the crime, but then released on religious liberty issues. You need to be VERY carefull when treading over issues that impact people's religious beliefs..... this is just a warning.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

We don't have any Jewish population to speak of. We do have a bunch of Muslims, upon whom this remains in force.

And sorry, we're not ever going to let anybody forcibly indoctrinate children. Religious liberty extends no further than oneself. Otherwise, you'd have pagans demanding that, since their conception of religion includes not just the family but the whole planet, nobody (pagan or not) is allowed to drive cars because to do so would infringe on their religious liberties. You can keep the family unit as part of your religion, but only such members of the family as are of the age of rational consent.

I'll say it again: your religious freedoms stop where someone else's begin.

Some religious sects believe that none believers should be killed (ahh fundamentalism…) some believe that there beliefs should be enforced on others.

I don't think it is wise that a law should be passed based on either reason, and I agree with Rehochipe that
your religious freedoms stop where someone else's begin.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

UN has no right to tell cultures or religions what they can or cannot do to their body, as long as it is by free choice.
Yes it does.
5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations: a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies

No, it doesnot. As long as people make choice of their own, noone has the right to deny anyone this free choice unless it harms the rights of others.
It's time politicians stop believing they have more rights than others simply because of their position. Even if they got there by democratic votes, that doesn't mean the majority is always right.

Furthermore: is that nose ring the next thing you will be outlawing?

As long as people make choice of their own, noone has the right to deny anyone this free choice unless it harms the rights of others.

Hence our age requirement. You don't really have the ability to make a choice on your own when you're eight days old.

And FGM is a major, major surgical practise. It's comparable, in its effect, to removing your voicebox or an eyeball.

No, it doesnot. As long as people make choice of their own, noone has the right to deny anyone this free choice unless it harms the rights of others.
It's time politicians stop believing they have more rights than others simply because of their position. Even if they got there by democratic votes, that doesn't mean the majority is always right.

Furthermore: is that nose ring the next thing you will be outlawing?

I'm not sure how far the topic has drifted here, but if you're still referring to this proposal, remember that it does not outlaw anything, but ensures that people have the knowledge necessary to make a decision - we can only make the 'right' decision if we know the facts.

Do proposals tend to get most of their approvals on the first day (when they're at the end of the list) or the last day (when they're at the start of the list). 'Cause it's been there 11 hours and only has 11 approvals, and I'd like to know whether I should be worried...

Proposals tend to get endorsed more quickly when they're on the front page. That said, it's hard to get any proposal, however virtuous, into the queue without a TG campaign - so many delegates don't read the forums or the proposal list. (I got my delegate to endorse this, by the way).

We don't have any Jewish population to speak of. We do have a bunch of Muslims, upon whom this remains in force.

And sorry, we're not ever going to let anybody forcibly indoctrinate children. Religious liberty extends no further than oneself. Otherwise, you'd have pagans demanding that, since their conception of religion includes not just the family but the whole planet, nobody (pagan or not) is allowed to drive cars because to do so would infringe on their religious liberties. You can keep the family unit as part of your religion, but only such members of the family as are of the age of rational consent.

I'll say it again: your religious freedoms stop where someone else's begin.

The point I am making though is not on whether the circumcisions are banned or not, but a stern warning of what will happen if it is. It is historically proven, especially among the three groups (muslim, christian, judaism) that passing laws that directly impact their religious beliefs, or outlaws them entirely, merely make the group band together tighter in defiance. Your pagan illustration isn't even comparible to the situation, as, that would mean mandating that everyone drives cars to impact. This has impact elsewhere to, what about pedobaptism, in your view it could be outlawed as well, since it is an intiation right on children, to quote your own words..... well, most of christianity practices pedobaptism, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the entirety of the Reformed Church are all pedo-baptists. These groups don't think in the normal "individual persons" concept, but in the corporate group and family group concepts... These groups have all survived, and in many cases GROWN during times of SEVERE persecution that would make your stomach turn. So don't think you would even dent them with such laws and reasonings. Trust me, you give the choice to muslims, christians and jews between obeying you or their God, they pick their God. Not to mention, it puts more culturally diverse nations, such as mine, in a hard point, we are left in a position where we must either a) remove the law, and resign from the UN for the interests of peace among our people, or b) increase funds, turn into a police state, and in the long term, be overthrown by our own peoples. Not to mention the dangers of other nations sympathetic to their cause, comming in and helping them overthrow the gov't here. Unfortuneately your the primary illustration why the U.N. is turning more and more into a failure, the "oh well, it's not my problem" mentality.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

We don't ban baptism of children, as it's not physically damaging (and meaningless if you don't decide to become a Christian), but we certainly don't encourage it either. Our social order would look on anyone who forced their child to follow their own religion as about as acceptable as someone who didn't teach their child to read.

Your pagan illustration isn't even comparible to the situation, as, that would mean mandating that everyone drives cars to impact.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here; your wording's kind of odd. Let's try another example: someone has a religion that demands they sacrifice their first-born with a big chainsaw. They don't think in terms of individuals either. What's the distinction?

We don't ban baptism of children, as it's not physically damaging (and meaningless if you don't decide to become a Christian), but we certainly don't encourage it either. Our social order would look on anyone who forced their child to follow their own religion as about as acceptable as someone who didn't teach their child to read.

Your pagan illustration isn't even comparible to the situation, as, that would mean mandating that everyone drives cars to impact.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here; your wording's kind of odd. Let's try another example: someone has a religion that demands they sacrifice their first-born with a big chainsaw. They don't think in terms of individuals either. What's the distinction?

Proposals tend to get endorsed more quickly when they're on the front page. That said, it's hard to get any proposal, however virtuous, into the queue without a TG campaign - so many delegates don't read the forums or the proposal list.

The thing is, I don't want to annoy delegates by telegramming them. I've looked around a bit and many of them have special rules (like posting in their regional fora). I guess I should find the time though...

(I got my delegate to endorse this, by the way).

Thanks. That's what I need, a grassroots campaign... :wink:

As a delegate, it's your job to deal with proposal TGs and the like. Don't worry about it.

The real problem comes in the effort it takes to TG so many delegates...

Delgates still have a problem... example from my most recent grassroots campaign....

From me:

I would please ask you to reconsider the resolution currently on the table on "Abortion Rights". It is simply too vague and does not supply enough time to this topic, and brings up questions as to the scope of interference, concerns about regulating for the purpose of safty and the like. We really need a better resolution on this that is far more extensive in the rights it provides in the entire scope of the issue.


The delegate's response...

I voted for this resolution because it is my personal opinion. And you're not going to change it. Please do not telegram me again. I will ignore you.


Translation:

"I am an ignorant, lazy bastard. Could not read past your first sentence before I labled you a conservative bastard. I will not think or reason about this issue, as I have the comparible intelligence of a slab of granite."

The sad thing, that was pretty much the chain I got from all of the one's I telegramed, and why after the first 40 or so, I gave up. With people like this, showing the majorit representation of the delegates of the U.N. it's no wonder the U.N. is devolving into a nightmare.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

In the Roanne Islands, this practice is unheard of and never done, so it doesn't affect us much. However, we support this proposal because we are aware and appalled that it is heard of elsewhere. We would love to here actual religious reasons for this practice, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

The real problem comes in the effort it takes to TG so many delegates...

sad but true

I hope this passes, as I do support it.

Should I concentrate on delegates from big regions (who are more likely to take their delegacy seriously) or from smaller regions (as there are many more of them)?

We would love to here actual religious reasons for this practice, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

FGM tends to be not so much religious as cultural, although it has become associated with religion (principally Islam and tribal religions) in some places.

The underlying belief behind it is that female sexuality is dirty, dangerous and wicked, and should be suppressed at all costs. Many traditions, including religious ones, have this tendency, particularly Judeo-Christian-Islamic ones but also earlier primitive beliefs. Freudian theory also aims to suppress the libido as a dangerous and socially destructive urge, as did the Roman legal system (with, um, somewhat limited success).

[ooc] As a rule, the practise has been most prevalent in the Middle East and Sahel Africa. Historically, there were also instances in the European Middle Ages (to prevent adultery among wives of the nobility) and the Victorian USA (to prevent masturbation).

I've telegrammed 50 delegates (taking a random walk through the regional happenings - I know there's a big list of delegates but that's rather boring). So far one of them has apprioved it. And my little finger is sore from pressing the control key so much (there really should be 'cut', 'copy', and 'paste' keys on the keyboard).

As a delegate, it's your job to deal with proposal TGs and the like. Don't worry about it.

The real problem comes in the effort it takes to TG so many delegates...

It sure is a lot of effort, but it seems to be paying off - it's now up to 38 approvals. Some of the delegate have even sent me nice telegrams complementing me on a well-thought-out resolution.

As long as people make choice of their own, noone has the right to deny anyone this free choice unless it harms the rights of others.

Hence our age requirement. You don't really have the ability to make a choice on your own when you're eight days old.

And FGM is a major, major surgical practise. It's comparable, in its effect, to removing your voicebox or an eyeball.

As I have also said, these free choices are made by adults, not by children. I agree that adults cannot make choices for children, that cannot be undone.
I still have the feeling you are not accepting, that if an adult mutalites his/her body of his/her own free will (either religous or for any other reason), you have not right to say no to that.

I've been through the first 300 pages of regions, telegramming any delegate in a region with over 40 nations (except in a couple of cases where the delegate hadn't been active in weeks). About 20 more have approved it, but one curiously said that if it came to the floor, he'd vote for it, but he wouldn't approve it in the proposal list. I guess he doesn't think it's a worthwhile issue.

Some do that in order to stay neutral.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Okay, that's 600 pages of regions down, only 330 to go. Submitting UN proposals is bad for your eyesight...

I'm astounded at how abusive some delegates can be:

The seriousness of the issue is your opinion. If it is socially acceptable in the nation, then who am I, or you to judge? I am not referring to any practice of just going up and mutilating people, as you assume. Your self-righteousness is pathetic. Is the superiority of your social and governmental structure so self-evident to warrant this view?

I don't think so.

Although I'm extremely offended by that (in particular 'your self-righteousness is pathetic') I doubt it'll be enough for the mods to do anything if I report it to them. I've kept the telegram just in case.

[edit #1 fixed quotation - most fora don't require quote marks... *sigh*]

Saflara even though you left out the clause I asked for.
(allowing the open hunting of and unlimited bag limits of those who perform or allow this travesty to be performed on lil girls, or any girls)
I still endorsed it, Ill aske LR and FS to endorse it as well,
as well as delegates from any region I own.

This would mostly relate to the practice performed in some of the middle eastern cultures if I remember correctly. I would support this proposal in the fact that it ruines a woman's ability to enjoy.. shall we say the finer things in life. Seriously though this definitly is abusive and totally against free will. I do wonder however how this will affect many nations who have never even heard of this practice. I t is not very common.

Saflara

*sigh* I guess I should have picked an easier to spell name (not a day goes by where I don't see it spelt Salafra or Salfara or Salara...)

even though you left out the clause I asked for.
(allowing the open hunting of and unlimited bag limits of those who perform or allow this travesty to be performed on lil girls, or any girls)
I still endorsed it, Ill aske LR and FS to endorse it as well,
as well as delegates from any region I own.

Thank you very much. It now only needs 40 more approvals to reach quorum, with a whole day of voting left, so I'm relatively hopeful that it'll reach quorum.

We Cant ban this. Its a cultural/religious process, a rite of passage. This would be along the lines of telling the Jewish people they cannot circumsize their kids. This is about the freedom of religion. Once we start a UN ban on religion where do we stop? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

But i also have to tell you, that it would, in fact, be banned in my country. I am highly opposed to the thought of it, its disgusting, but thats not the point.

It's not freedom of religion it's parents imposing there beliefs on their children in a manner wich is harmful.

your religious freedoms stop where someone else's begin.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

We Cant ban this. Its a cultural/religious process, a rite of passage. This would be along the lines of telling the Jewish people they cannot circumsize their kids. This is about the freedom of religion. Once we start a UN ban on religion where do we stop? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

As I've said before in this thread, it's not a ban, it's an education programme. This gives people the chance to make up their own minds (and I hope they agree with me, but I can't force them to).

I've been through the first 300 pages of regions, telegramming any delegate in a region with over 40 nations (except in a couple of cases where the delegate hadn't been active in weeks). About 20 more have approved it, but one curiously said that if it came to the floor, he'd vote for it, but he wouldn't approve it in the proposal list. I guess he doesn't think it's a worthwhile issue.

Or it could be that *that* nation wants to feel out if the international community is largely in favour of the proposal before accepting something that may agitate this forum first.

There are many examples of UN Delegates granting an endorsement to a proposal only later to regret it once the resolution reaches the floor. Last month there were a number of proposals that at a first glance sounded good, but upon a more careful look were frankly terrible.

That said, my first look over your nation's proposal left my nation in support of your proposal. It appears well written. I'm certainly looking forward to the issue reaching a debate.

10kMichael

Oh and one more thing I am not sure was brought up yet. These practices are held mainly in jungle reigions and tribal cultures in africa. I dont think any UN resolution will affect the mainstream FGM occurences. I can tell you they probably wont even hear about it. Are we then to police tribes of people that never set foot into a civilized surrounding. We have to remember this isnt something thats happening in the streets of Paris, New York, or anyother civilized and even not so civilized countries. Correct me if im wrong.

Oh and one more thing I am not sure was brought up yet. These practices are held mainly in jungle reigions and tribal cultures in africa. I dont think any UN resolution will affect the mainstream FGM occurences. I can tell you they probably wont even hear about it. Are we then to police tribes of people that never set foot into a civilized surrounding. We have to remember this isnt something thats happening in the streets of Paris, New York, or anyother civilized and even not so civilized countries. Correct me if im wrong.
OOC: The real world doesn’t exist here.

We Cant ban this. Its a cultural/religious process, a rite of passage. This would be along the lines of telling the Jewish people they cannot circumsize their kids. This is about the freedom of religion. Once we start a UN ban on religion where do we stop? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Where is that line then?

Let's pretend that there is a nation of crab people. And that a minority group in the crab people nation decided that the female crabs didn't need their pincher claws, so they cut off their pincher claws and just kept stubs on the belief that the male crabs could protect them. Though this would certainly be a cultural practice, the larger question is: is it a humane ... er crab friendly practice?

Now let's pretend that instead of just cutting off their pincher claws that the crab society decides that crab women are best suited for laying eggs, because they have no pincher claws. And it becomes customary to also remove the rest of their legs. Again, the reasoning / justification is cultural.

In both cases though the issue is *domestic* and cultural, I agree with your statement that there is a line. The question is at what point does a human (crab) rights issue transcend domestic boundaries?

I would say we have to be careful in these cases, but as the proponents of this proposal have pointed out, this resolution is an international condemnation of a practice which targets only a *segement* of a population. The practice may be cultural, but when it is targeted towards a segment of a population, it *may* be discriminatory. The proposal is careful to use education, not mandates to address the problem.

All and all, I'd say that this is exactly the type of resolution I wish more nations would submit. We can discuss the issue while showing some respect of cultural / domestic authority. In other words we aren't talking about sending in UN police forces to change a law over night, but to put international pressure to stop a discriminatory practice.

10kMichael

Oh and one more thing I am not sure was brought up yet. These practices are held mainly in jungle reigions and tribal cultures in africa. I dont think any UN resolution will affect the mainstream FGM occurences. I can tell you they probably wont even hear about it. Are we then to police tribes of people that never set foot into a civilized surrounding. We have to remember this isnt something thats happening in the streets of Paris, New York, or anyother civilized and even not so civilized countries. Correct me if im wrong.
OOC: The real world doesn?t exist here.

OOC: But the basic point is still worthy of addressing. :) Replac Africa with the North Pacific, and Paris with Miervatia, etc. and I feel that the statement would be interesting to consider.

I can't see it on the list, are we too late?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I can't see it on the list, are we too late?


For some reason a number of proposals that were meant to be deleted tomorrow were removed today. What I'll do is resubmit it after I've had lunch tomorrow (about 1:00pm GMT) and telegram all the delegates again. Fortunately I made a list as I telegrammed them last time, so it should take somewhat less that eight hours this time...

We Cant ban this. Its a cultural/religious process, a rite of passage. This would be along the lines of telling the Jewish people they cannot circumsize their kids. This is about the freedom of religion. Once we start a UN ban on religion where do we stop? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

this is not a right of passage, they do it to keep little girld from having Sex, they remove parts that have large nerve clusters so the girl gets no sensation out of the act.

have you ever SEEN the results of this, I saw a artile in Hustler I beleive that showed what happens to a gal when they do it, it is nasty,

there is an African n=model who had it done to her when she was 6 I cannot recall her name but Ill try to remember, she said it hurt like crazy.

would you let someone do this to your daughter? I think not.
do a little research on the subject, and you will see why I asked for a clause allowing the perps to be hunted.

well all I have to say is as we speak operation Kill all the Femal Circumsizers is being readied
Infinite Loop plans to send 200 k troops, (Human, Lizard and Cylon) to
the various parts of the world where this practice is carried out in order to
put an end to this barbaric Chastity process.

if it is ammended to include all non voluntary (incl ALL on minors) genital mutilation which is not absolutely necessary, incl male circumcision, gender reassignment and intersex "correction" and castration

then the Hiio will be way on board

I agree with the above,
as Circumsision for non Jewish/muslim boy childred is pointless.it is done by parents tricked into thingking that they will masturbate less and be less prone to disease.
both of which are false.

We Cant ban this. Its a cultural/religious process, a rite of passage. This would be along the lines of telling the Jewish people they cannot circumsize their kids. This is about the freedom of religion. Once we start a UN ban on religion where do we stop? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

this is not a right of passage, they do it to keep little girld from having Sex, they remove parts that have large nerve clusters so the girl gets no sensation out of the act.

have you ever SEEN the results of this, I saw a artile in Hustler I beleive that showed what happens to a gal when they do it, it is nasty,

there is an African n=model who had it done to her when she was 6 I cannot recall her name but Ill try to remember, she said it hurt like crazy.

would you let someone do this to your daughter? I think not.
do a little research on the subject, and you will see why I asked for a clause allowing the perps to be hunted.

I agree. It is not like circumcision. It would be more comparable to cutting off the head of a male's penis. Also, it can and often does lead to death. It is nothing less than torture.

I agree with the above,
as Circumsision for non Jewish/muslim boy childred is pointless.

What exactly is the point for Jewish/Muslim boys anyway?

What exactly is the point for Jewish/Muslim boys anyway?


I had covered that in an earlier post.

Centered around Judaism, it is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. Read Genesis 17, and you'll see the whole involvement with it. My clinch against it, deals with the discord it will create, especially amongst Orthodox Judaism. Most of the objection to my devils-advocate position on that point kinda showed that the objectors had a faulty definition of "religion" in mind. They didn't quite get the concept of it being more or less a banning of their entire belief system, as it is primarily centered around the Abrahamic covenant (see the ref.). Muslims also borrow from that same covenential relationship view. In the opponents view, they believe through education and banning they will stamp it out. I know for a fact that it won't work. Jews/Muslims will see it as a direct attack upon one of the foundations of their religion. They lack the forsight to really understand the impact of their ideas upon the world. These two groups are fairly easily to garner support from certain other religious groups (including christians). It's a general failure of the Secular Humanistic/Naturalistic religous mentality to step off their supposed high-horse and anylize the impact of what they do in a real-world scenario.

The end effect of adding the male-circumscision clause will merely be to divide the U.N. even further, and make the entirety of the organization pointless.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Okay, I've resubmitted it. And I've just spent another couple of hours telegramming all the delegates again (well, that's an improvement on the first time, when it took me 10 hours...).

You've got my approval.

Would someone be so kind as to post the resubmitted version of the resolution here, so that members may debate its appropriateness?

Would someone be so kind as to post the resubmitted version of the resolution here, so that members may debate its appropriateness?

It's on the first post in this thread, which I've been editting to keep up-to-date.

From what ive heard ppl say in here- I think there needs to be an active attempt at education of as many people as possible (especially the delegates- as we all know that when proposal reaches quorum than thats basically it) of PRECISELY what construes FGM and what does not. Until that point I think it's going to be hard to get the support for a proposal like this, especially as a lot of delegates are probably from areas who would have little or no idea what FGM actually is in the first place.

Furthermore many of the more liberal delegates dont appreciate being given proposals that they perceive as being detrimental to national sovreignty, and with an issue like this that, whilst not explicitly religious, does have sultural connotations, that some regional delegates will not appreciate.

On a side note- shouldnt outright castration or any mutilation further than male circumcision be included here as well, better to try and kill these things off with one stone rather than two

In terms of principle, this will be only the third proposal (after the current one, and the space exploration) that i would be prepared to support. Sadly however I'm just a pleb and not a delegate- so I cant help you reach quorum :cry:

Lennon Q. Marx

In terms of principle, this will be only the third proposal (after the current one, and the space exploration) that i would be prepared to support. Sadly however I'm just a pleb and not a delegate- so I cant help you reach quorum :cry:

Well, you could help me telegram delegates (I've only telegrammed those in regions of more than 30 nations)... :wink: I note your delegate has approved it.

Glad I spotted this thread, didn't know it had been resubmitted.

One less delegate to telegram!

White Lotus Eaters
UN Delegate, Urbanites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=urbanites) Region

Oh and one more thing I am not sure was brought up yet. These practices are held mainly in jungle reigions and tribal cultures in africa. I dont think any UN resolution will affect the mainstream FGM occurences. I can tell you they probably wont even hear about it. Are we then to police tribes of people that never set foot into a civilized surrounding. We have to remember this isnt something thats happening in the streets of Paris, New York, or anyother civilized and even not so civilized countries. Correct me if im wrong.
I'm very sad to say that you are wrong, in the real world. The practice happens today in Paris, New York and London, largely among immigrant groups. Sometimes it's carried out in the host country, other times to avoid the law there, girls and young women are sent (often unsuspecting) for a visit to family in the country their parents came from.

I won't post a link as most sites are very distressing, if you want to know more, Google the subject plus your country.

Glad I spotted this thread, didn't know it had been resubmitted.

If I had known the original proposal would disappear a day early along with another ten proposals from that day, I'd have copied the list of all those that approved it. As it is, I'm having to do it from memory. Thank you for approving it again.

I am sad to say that education will do little to change cultural views of FGM. Sadly, some girls will accept this painful and destructive surgical alteration, if they have grown and lived in a cultural society that centers around male domination.

We of Letila agree that FGM is evil. It should be banned.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well I agree too, it is a attempt at reeducation,
anyone IL catches performing this atrocity will be reeducated, and if they do it again, they willbe reeducated by our Cylon War Machine's with a Industrial Meat Grinder.

LOL

This proposal has our unqualified support.

John Boone
Speaker for Rights & Wellbeing

I am sad to say that education will do little to change cultural views of FGM. Sadly, some girls will accept this painful and destructive surgical alteration, if they have grown and lived in a cultural society that centers around male domination.

But education changes society over time. I'm not saying this proposal will solve the problem overnight, but it will have a major effect over time.

Halfway there (72 approvals, 143 needed).

I've begun telegramming delegates of smaller regions (between 20 and 30 nations).

On page 10 now with 96 approvals, just 47 needed! :)

This resolution says alot, but does little to stop the action.

I, the President of Whited Fields, can not endorse this resolution, since it does infringe on the religious beliefs of others.

FGM is a rite of passage for girls in many countries, and while I have a personal abhoration to the act, I do recognize that it IS a religious act and is upheld by the culture that supports it.

Should a young woman be with a man who is not her husband, or with someone she is not betrothed to, her family suffers great shame. Women who have had FGM fetch a greater dowry than girls who are not. It is assumed that since these girls have had this procedure, then they will not voluntarily engage in sexual acts with a man.

Therefore, I feel a better first step would be to offer greater medical service to countries who wish to perform this ritual, so that young girls can have it performed properly and with minimized risk of infection or death. As it is performed now, most girls do not get anesthesia, and the instruments used can be nothing more than a sharp rock.

If, with the qualified medical treatment, we can offer family counseling and education, a generation or so later may abandon the process completely. That would mean that there would be significant numbers of girls who live until the education changes their society.

Sometimes, in order to change society, you must first work within its parameters.

I, the President of Whited Fields, can not endorse this resolution, since it does infringe on the religious beliefs of others.

FGM is a rite of passage for girls in many countries, and while I have a personal abhoration to the act, I do recognize that it IS a religious act and is upheld by the culture that supports it.

Should a young woman be with a man who is not her husband, or with someone she is not betrothed to, her family suffers great shame. Women who have had FGM fetch a greater dowry than girls who are not. It is assumed that since these girls have had this procedure, then they will not voluntarily engage in sexual acts with a man.

Therefore, I feel a better first step would be to offer greater medical service to countries who wish to perform this ritual, so that young girls can have it performed properly and with minimized risk of infection or death. As it is performed now, most girls do not get anesthesia, and the instruments used can be nothing more than a sharp rock.

If, with the qualified medical treatment, we can offer family counseling and education, a generation or so later may abandon the process completely. That would mean that there would be significant numbers of girls who live until the education changes their society.

Sometimes, in order to change society, you must first work within its parameters.

Boo! It could be us being mutilated! Kick this gorean out!

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Therefore, I feel a better first step would be to offer greater medical service to countries who wish to perform this ritual, so that young girls can have it performed properly and with minimized risk of infection or death. As it is performed now, most girls do not get anesthesia, and the instruments used can be nothing more than a sharp rock.
One problem with this "solution" of yours: where are you going to find people who have undergone a modern education and medical training, and are then prepared to mutilate girls and forever remove any prospect of them enjoying sex?

(And if you do find them, would you let them practice on other females?) :shock:

On page 10 now with 96 approvals, just 47 needed! :)

Now 110, just 32 needed. I guess I should change the thread title to say 'approaching quorum' again...

The proper medical training could come from any doctor who grew up or has a strong heritage from the countries that currently support this abusive act.

The education could be from someone else separately, and in fact, should not be the same doctor who performed the task. Since you are hoping to encourage the parents of these girls to bring their children to you, then it would be ill-advised to make them feel like the person offering the medical support is looking down at their culture.

Again, I dont agree with FGM. I think it is an abhorrent act and I would love to in principle support the massive MGM for men who do this to girls. However, as I stated before, FGM is a SPIRITUAL rite of PASSAGE and education alone will NOT change things.

The best way to combat this horrid thing is to first WORK within the system that it lives, by offering and making available services so that the act can be performed more safely and with less pain to the girl.

Whether you believe it or not, there are some girls who not only accept FGM, but also will argue vehemently for FGM as she has been trained in her culture the intense shame that a family will suffer and the immense hardships her reduced dowry would be should it not be performed. This is the reality we live in, and if we want to change such a deeply spiritual and emotionally-charged act, we must first find a way to gain the people's support. Offering medical services would do just that.

Yes, Frosterley will support this motion. This isn't about cultural sensitivity, but about women's subjugation.

Saflara, we've reendorsed this proposal. :D

Saflara

S A F *A* *L* R A... :P

Bulgandaria is awaiting full admission into the UN, the UN has stated in around 24 hours we will be in the UN. If we get in before the voting ends we will vote on this proposal.

Just one more approval needed... it's getting late here, but I think I'll stay up to see it reach quorum.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

That didn't take long then...

Seeing as people keep asking the same questions 'cause they don't bother reading the whole thread, I think I'll replace the first post in this thread with an FAQ, and change the title to indicate this.

Okay, suggestions for questions for the FAQ? I've had a number of people telegramming me to ask what FGM is exactly, and some people asking why I don't go for an outright ban on it, and why it doesn't extend to 'MGM'.

Okay, suggestions for questions for the FAQ? I've had a number of people telegramming me to ask what FGM is exactly, and some people asking why I don't go for an outright ban on it, and why it doesn't extend to 'MGM'.

Well, if it's a permanent ban, then there would be no piercing allowed. Heck, there are some that want that for some reason.
Not sure about 'MGM'---maybe make that a separate resolution?

has anyone asked what the women want?

its en equal equation - guys get circumsized, gals get circumsized- it doesn't just target women. Maybe the women believe they haff to get it done, just like guys believe they haff to get it done, in those countries they do it in.

has anyone asked what the women want?

I realise that some women do want to have this done to them. Usually it because of myths (the most common being that if the don't have it done then in future their babies will die), and education will let people make decisions based on the facts rather than myths.

Esteemed colleagues,

I've voted against FGM, as it seems like a waste of money, and against national sovereignty. This should be the domain of private lobby and education groups with a gripe against this practise, not the entire UN. The UN is yet again being hijacked by special interests.

There are doubtless a few UN nations who practise this, and the rest of us should not tell them what to do with their babies. Why should the UN force them to pay for propaganda telling them their religious practices are evil and wrong? How would you like to be forced to pay for propaganda saying your beliefs are evil and wrong?

Besides, first they'll agitate against female circumcision, then they'll ban it, then they'll try to ban male circumcision too. It should be up to each nation, the parents, religious figures, and the doctors what kind of surgeries and procedures they perform on infants, not the UN.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

Anyone who is in favor of a Ban on Female circumcision does not belong in the UN. Your Ethnocentrical views do not belong in the UN. Your lack of intelligence and world views do not belong in the UN.

If anything, we should be promoting safer female circumcision, instead of trying to outlaw it. Its been proven the ritual is not carried out in a safe, sterile manner, but what hasnt been proven, and has been quite the contrary, is that the clitoris is not missed by the female. They dont know the difference and are still able to live a normal life, even when removed from their native society and brought into a more progressive society.

Perhaps the next FAQ question should be 'will this ban FGM?'…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

We can’t support the resolution.

While we like the aims, a resolution geared towards education should be focussed on that. As this proposal specifically mentions that FGM happens to many women against their will, it suggests that it alone is a solution. We would prefer stronger measures to prevent such — this resolution could lead many to believe the issue has been dealt with.

The resolution wrongly refers to male circumcision as ‘safe’, which should not be enshrined by the UN. Male circumcision is genital mutilation too, and while not as extreme, circumsized males have lower tolerance for pain and statistically a higher predisposition towards violence and rape. Bent penises, loss of sensation (often compensated for by faster, harder sex), and sexual dysfunctions all often result from male circumcisions.

Finally, the idea of a UN resolution suggesting the language that be used is a bad precedent. Language and the usage of specific words and terms should be decided by the grassroots public, if informed by writers, journalists, and educators.

It's an appropriate human rights issue, and the education proposed in the resolution will go some way in addressing it.
I vote for and encourage others to do the same.

Anyone who is in favor of a Ban on Female circumcision does not belong in the UN.

It's not a ban. Please read the FAQ (first post in this thread).

the clitoris is not missed by the female. They dont know the difference

I take it you're male?

Why should the UN force them to pay for propaganda telling them their religious practices are evil and wrong?

It doesn't tell them it's 'evil' and 'wrong'. It tells them it's dangerous, which is a matter of fact and not of moral belief.

Besides, first they'll agitate against female circumcision, then they'll ban it,

See the FAQ (first post in this thread) for why I don't want a ban.

then they'll try to ban male circumcision too.

You won't see me doing that (my father's side of the family are Jewish).

Also, I object to your subject line, 'more communist UN meddling...'. :roll:

[edit #1 fixed quote syntax]

It's an appropriate human rights issue, and the education proposed in the resolution will go some way in addressing it.
I vote for and encourage others to do the same.

My nation concur's with Sydia's position.

The resolution does not FORCE nations to end the (barbaric) practice, but uses education in an attempt to slowly (over time) improve human rights. By using education, there will be ways to uniquely communicate with the different cultures that still practice this and develop a balance between cultural and basic human rights.

If we were watching socities chop off the legs and arms of women so they could only be tied to a bed where they would be forced to breed, surely this assembly would be up in arms. Clearly we are debating what is going to be a matter of opinion, but I think in this particular case: there are basic fundamental human / sentinent rights that we are entitled to and should not be denied by circumstance of country of birth.

Though I advocate that the UN has no business interfering in domestic affairs, that is with the understanding that there are exceptions.

Case in point: let's say that there is a country called Nazi Germany. Let's pretend that it decided to construct huge gas chambers and its national / domestic policy is that anybody who is a jewish should be put to death .... though the issue is domestic, the fate suffered by these people is serious enough that international attention is warranted.

Basic human rights, are an exception to international standing when there is no viable alternative, but even then the actions taken must be carefully weighed out.

This resolution does that, and does it well. It doesn't FORCE a policy on nations. Instead it CALLS UPON and RECOMMENDS.

Having worked with many UN resolutions and co-authored several of the resolutions that have passed this year, I assure you that this is a well-written proposal that clearly walks the line between domestic and international with a careful eye to the intent of the UN.

Please join Sydia and the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and vote yes on this international statement!

Mikitivity

The resolution wrongly refers to male circumcision as ‘safe’, which should not be enshrined by the UN. Male circumcision is genital mutilation too, and while not as extreme, circumsized males have lower tolerance for pain

With the medical condition of an overly tight foreskin (I still haven't found out the technical name for it...), circumcision is the only treatment and it reduces pain.

and statistically a higher predisposition towards violence and rape.

Really? I've never heard that one before.

Perhaps the next FAQ question should be 'will this ban FGM?'…

I've already got a question/answer explaining why it's not a ban, but guess what - people don't read the FAQ! :roll:

Thank you for your long and well-written defence of the proposal, Mikitivity. It's nice to not have to do all the convincing myself... :wink:

[edit #1 spelling]

We have a question - which you may consider stupid, but which we want to have answered. Does this proposal prevent any future resolution regarding this issue, for example a future resolution BANNING female genital mutilation????


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

We have a question - which you may consider stupid, but which we want to have answered.

I answer even stupid questions... :wink:

Does this proposal prevent any future resolution regarding this issue, for example a future resolution BANNING female genital mutilation?

The only thing not allowed would be a repeal (though I gather [violet] is thinking of adding repeals). A ban is compatible with this resolution, so could be proposed at a future date.

The Republic of Ex-Euro Wannabe Gangsta believes that whether or not Female Genital mutilation takes place is not the government decision but the peoples.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Having spent a good amount of time in my pre-Presidential years working on and with various outreach groups and causes I can tell you that this proposal is alot of hot wind and not alot of action.

While it only calls for urgings and recommendations, it does little that it could do to assist the women which it claims to want to protect.

The fact is, that in countries where this occurs, it is still a religious rite of passage. It may not be 'required' by the faith, but it is highly recommended to parents with daughters. In the churches eyes of many of the nations that use this, girls are thought to be inherently incapable of abstaining from sex.

Therefore, this resolution, which will increase our spending, will not protect the girls from the abuse of FGM. Education will only work when these countries accept women as equals in society. They do not care of the 'danger' that this places their women, as again, men make the decisions and women do not have a voice. Women are rarely more than property or chattel.

Therefore, unless we also include medical assistance to these countries so that the procedure can be performed properly, we will see nothing more than the continued mutilation and death of young girls, and a lifetime of pain for the women they become.

It is hoped, that by providing medical services, that the countries will at least take more care in their continued use. Perhaps in that time, women will gain a social independence and worth in these nations. Only then, will the act of FGM be abolished.

It is for this lack of assistance that I can not support this resolution. I do not think it wise to spend money on a social project that has no real chance of changing things.

I'm voting against this resolution... I can't be buggered paying for an education campaign!

...and I was going to buy that ivory backscratcher :evil:

Then again, if it passes... perhaps my country could make some money out of this... launch a competition - with a registration fee - asking documentary makers to produce a 30 second ad against FGM. We can use the money from the entry fees to fund the winning advertisement, while donating the rest of the money into the nation's coffers :D

I fully support the underlying merits of this resolution... Bragorians love their female genitals... I'm just too stingy to pay for advertising :wink:

In school the other day my class was having a rather enlightening discussion about the Canadian politics. I'm Canadian, by the way.

Being a new (accepted only today) member of the U.N., this is my first time voting on a resolution. But back to the discussion.

My English teacher was assigning a project about the platforms of each Canadian political party - those being Liberal, Conservative Reform Alliance, and the New Democrat Party - oh, and the Green Party - and he came onto the topic of the Conservative Reform Alliance's (hereon referred to as "Conservative") position on women and abortion. A couple of friends in my english class are veteran NationStates.net players and they said that the Abortion issue was voted upon just a week or so before.

Getting to the point...

My teacher declared (while holding up a coat hanger) that whether abortion was legal or not, it would be performed, whether it was illegally on a sterilized operating table or a counter in a kitchen, abortions would occur. The reason for the hanger was to implant the idea of using the hanger to literally rip out the fetus from the woman's uterus. Being a male, the idea disgusted me. A couple of females developed nervous tics in their eyelids.

Now if you believe that would be painful, disturbing, disgusting, or any combination of them, imagine the "rite of passage" these young girls must go through in countries like Somalia.

Though I would like to see more action taken - as in an active ban against FGM - this is but a first step towards this greater level. Every step to stop FGM is a good one, and though nations voting against this issue have their reasons, I encourage all nations not yet voting to vote for this resolution to be passed.

That is all.

Emperor Sulamence of Saltania

Dear Emperor Sulamence:

I agree with you that this proposal does not strongly enough stand against the horrid act of FGM. However, I ask you this. In a country where women are less than human... where they are property of men... do you honestly believe that simple education will do enough to stop these practices?

I have had the fortunateness of growing up in a society that accepts women as equals, though women a few generations before did not. Abortions did occur even when it was illegal, in many painful and unhealthy ways. Now lets look at your scenario. Should FGM be outlawed by a resolution, do you not think that some would seek them anyway, in those same horrid practices that they once did for abortions? As it stands now, in countries where it can be afforded, women have the benefit of peforming the procedure in a medical fashion. If we could only offer that same level of care to ALL women in these cultures.

Hence why I feel that in order for us to do ANY good, we must provide such treatment. We can still educate the people. We can perhaps even set their societies into revolution that extends women into the role of equals. But for education to work, that must occur first. At least by offering medical treatment, we can ensure more girls reach womanhood.

I am not well knowledged on FGM, but if it is the custom of another society should we force them to change? Should we ask jews to not wear their caps, should we ask females from the middle east not to wer scarfs around their face (so on).

I would vote against forcing a society to change their ways because another finds it distasteful. Perhaps if this proposal were re-admitted under banning forced rituals which involves FGM (i.e, againt the other persons will)

Anyone that approves of this is a sadist.

Anyone that approves of this is a sadist.

To the proposal or to FGM? That statement was rather... imprecise.

And to you, Whited Fields...

I DID, in my recent post, say that though this was not, in my opinion, an ADEQUATE measure to stop the occurrance of FGM, it was but one small step towards a hopefully greater level of action to be taken against the abhorrent FGM.

If it is the removal of the uterus you speak of when you say "a medical fashion of FGM," I am not against the medical procedure of the removal of a woman's uterus - that procedure is quite voluntary. What I am against is the occurrance of FGM while the victim - obviously the mutilated woman - does not wish for it to occur. I have nothing against sex as long as both parties consent - but I hold rape in the highest disregard. A man - or even a woman - forcing themself upon another is not a pleasurable occurrance, and neither is FGM. I know not whether you oppose or agree with this resolution, but, all we can do is hope that the education of those about FGM can in some way help prevent it. I am totally in concurrance with the idea of a BAN of FGM, as well - though it is highly unlikely such a resolution will come to the floor in a vote of the UN.

Finally, in answer to the first question you posed; no, I don't think the simple education will do enough to stop these practices entirely. I can only hope that the UN would be willing to take this resolution just one step further.

"there are countries in this world where it's the custom for the men there to cut off the woman's clitoris. this is true and very gruesome. we should be happy that this will never happen in our country, because the men here don't know where the clitoris is."

No, I do think you misunderstand me when I say we provide the medical services.

As I have said before, some girls who endure this procedure must have it done in poor villages where the technique is to use a sharp rock. piece of glass, or sharpened piece of metal to cut away the outer skin of the FG.

It is a gruesome practice, certainly, but what if we could at least ensure that countries who practice this were to have proper medical environments to do so. A clean area, with the proper medical gear, and perhaps something to anesthesize them would be better than to only educate them. The simple fact is, most of them that have this performed cant seek a proper medical environment. It occurs in small villages in the middle of nowhere, where the closest major town may be days away by any means of travel.

Therefore, if we could give them traveling medical teams to at least do this properly, it would be better than the pain they must endure when performed by whatever they can find.

I totally agree with you on the point of providing medical teams to assist in performing a clean procedure of FGM. But I still cannot SANCTION its performance. I will do everything I possibly can short of murder and law-breaking to proceed with getting the procedure of FGM banned from any UN nations. I will.

But, the flaw in your plan is...

I believe that FGM is a ritual which must involve the father, or whoever it is who will perform the FGM. These people have little - or none at all - medical training in performing FGM. I also doubt they will have little interest in being taught by these roaming medical teams.

Perhaps that could be part of the education? Some way to educate the performers of these gruesome rituals on the proper procedure? I doubt they will have little interest in that either.

I am not suggesting that those who perform this act are barbarians in any way. I am saying that it is an abhorrent occurrance which needs to be stopped, and I, while not willing to go to ANY means available to stop it, do not think that those who perform the act would be willing to be TAUGHT how to do it. I agree that putting the victim under some sort of anasthaetic and giving the performer some kind of scalpel would indeed assist in reducing the gruesomeness (if that's a word) of the procedure, but FGM violates human rights and someone has to put a stop to it.

I am not in the UN because it made my country go down the tube. It says condem in this resolution which i don't like how can you condem something that could be religious in my country the woman has free choice and the docter always has 2 ask her privatley, but condeming is quite bad

Whats all the fuss.... I think it's kinda sexy.

Sickboy

I agree with Whited Fields. Here's (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Female_circumcision) an article on the various forms of FGM and the health risks in involves.
I am not in the UN because it made my country go down the tube. It says condem in this resolution which i don't like how can you condem something that could be religious in my country the woman has free choice and the docter always has 2 ask her privatley, but condeming is quite bad
Most of the time it is done on girls of a young age who have no say in the matter.

You think that a nation who uses whatever they can find to cut away the outer skin of a girls genetalia are going to be the least interested in learning about how to make it more humane?

In most ritualistic practices, it is performed by a travelling female who is like a tribal doctor. MOST of the countries do not condone men working on women for medical treatment. Fathers do not usually perform this act.

So; if we were to sanction medical teams who could establish a travelling practice to perform this act, train the women who usually perform it, offer a cleaner environment for the act, and teach the women and mothers how to care for the wound, then more girls would survive the practice.

You cant just educate people by telling them. You must also educate them by showing. The best way to do this would be to sanction medical staff to the countries to work hands on with the women of the tribes.

Ignorance can be destroyed through education and a stiff branch from a tree. We care not for a culture's practice of this no matter what! It is torture, mutilation, and about the most idiotic pagan practice I have ever seen. That is exactly why these people are still living in 1547! they need education if that does not work than by force or economic sanction is the way to go. No way in hell this can honestly be allowed to happen. You cannot debate this in a logical manner if it is dealing with children being tortured and or humiliated. Thier very rights are being taken away from them before they even have a chance to voice thier thoughts! You cannot look at this through the eyes of an objectivist!

I agree with the resolution.
But would go a great deal further.

Why not ban male genital mutilation too? At least for children under 18.
If they want a piece of their weener cut off later (which I doubt) they can have it done with their own consent.

I have nothing againgst jews, they are not more retarded than other people.
In fact, if you look for the reason for the practice in the bible. You'll see that it was because one of the jews wanted to sleep with the woman of another tribe, where the circumcision was carried out.
The jew could marry the woman if he had his cut and the rest of the jews had it done too, as the dude was their leader...

lol ... leadership :P

You think that a nation who uses whatever they can find to cut away the outer skin of a girls genetalia are going to be the least interested in learning about how to make it more humane?

Isn't that what *I* was saying?

I can finally understand your idea now, and I have to say I totally agree that it would be a good idea... I just don't see how it would be pheasible. I mean, that would take a lot of medical teams, and there are so many countries that probably (though I'm making a guess here) that perform it in the Middle East and Africa. And let's face it, some of those nations don't exactly love us western nations.

As I've said before, this proposal is a mere step in the right direction. Further action would be, IMO, better, however for now this is the resolution at vote and this is what we're voting on; not placing medical teams all across that side of the world.

Women are property created by the Lord Jesus Christ for man's enjoyment and entertainment. If her OWNER so desires, her genitals are to be mutilated. Furthermore, if a female's pleasure response is removed, then her goal will be to please her man as fast as possible. Thus eliminating her selfish motivations.

Women are property created by the Lord Jesus Christ for man's enjoyment and entertainment. If her OWNER so desires, her genitals are to be mutilated. Furthermore, if a female's pleasure response is removed, then her goal will be to please her man as fast as possible. Thus eliminating her selfish motivations.

Welcome to Medieval Europe, year 894 A.D.!

Seriously. Come on.

Let's ignore obvious flamebait, shall we? :roll:

Once in a long while, a proposal comes along which I deem worthy of reaching resolution status. In the case of female genital mutilation, I do, indeed, feel it is worthy of approval. It is disgusting what barbaric practices go on in our world (in the case of female "circumcision," it's especially widespread in Egypt). I dare say this evil must be put down once and for all.

....just vote for.

I still say that voting for this resolution will do nothing except raise taxes.

You can not expect to inform these nations that the practice is barbaric. They will not listen to a condemnation of their practices.
You can not expect to inform these nation that the practice is unhealthy or unsanitary. They obviously do not care when they are slicing away the skin with whatever sharp object they find handy.

Medical teams do not have to be large, just a doctor and nurse, or physicians assistant and nurse with medical supplies would be sufficient.
Now multiply that selection of 2 people by the number of countries that currently perform the act.

The purpose is that these teams would travel to the villages and teach/assist the females of the tribes who commit the act. They would train them in a sanitary way of doing things, show them how to provide more sanitary environments, and give them medical supplies.
They could teach the women of the tribe the different ways that FGM is accomplished, and hopefully teach them a more acceptable one. With the training, they may be able to convince these women that they do not need to sew together the girls vaginal opening if they are performing the clitoridectomy.
THERE is your EDUCATION. Doing what is BEST and more humane for the girls involved.

As it seems, many still are not aware that this resolution has NO intention of banning the practice.

At last, a good resolution. Since our nation joined the UN in early May, this is the first resolution that is not (1) simplistic, (2) extremist, (3) badly drafted, or some combination thereof.

This is a serious resolution addressing a serious issue. The current 10-to-1 margin in favor is well-deserved.

G.D. Whitney
President of The United States of The Bills

I still say that voting for this resolution will do nothing except raise taxes.

OOC: Human Rights resolutions do not raise taxes.

As it seems, many still are not aware that this resolution has NO intention of banning the practice.

I know, it's annoying - five delegates have telegrammed me saying they're voting against because they don't think the UN should ban anything.

Perhaps the topic should be changed again.

Education against FGM. [At Quorum]

I am not in the UN because it made my country go down the tube. It says condem in this resolution which i don't like how can you condem something that could be religious in my country the woman has free choice and the docter always has 2 ask her privatley, but condeming is quite bad

We are a pretty tolerant nation; politically and religiously. But we believe there are some things that civilized nations must condemn. This resolution falls into that category.

There was a time when many religious people did not condemn slavery. It has taken centuries to get to the point where slavery is almost universally condemned. Should we say that slavery should not be condemned because there is a nation out there that still believes it is moral? Of course not.

Condemning slavery was easy, compared to condemning the practice of FGM.

It is alot easier to find slave traders than it is to find the places where FGM takes place. If we were to condemn the practice and ban it, then it would simply fall underground, where sanitary conditions would be even worse, and more girls would die from complications and post treatment infections.

The practice of FGM also spreads AIDS, since the lack of medical equipment means that the same sharp object is used repeatedly on many girls. They do not sanitize or in any way wash the cutting object, and you are lucky if they dont toss it into the dirt after using it and before working on the next girl.

I would like to point out, BTW, that slavery too have been pushed underground. Girls are often sold into sex slavery trades and the people responsible have become rather adept at hiding their marks. Sweat-shop slaves are also on the rise in countries like the United States, since the need for them has risen, and there is not enough policing to stop the smugglers.

Condemning slavery was easy, compared to condemning the practice of FGM.

It is alot easier to find slave traders than it is to find the places where FGM takes place. If we were to condemn the practice and ban it, then it would simply fall underground, where sanitary conditions would be even worse, and more girls would die from complications and post treatment infections.

The practice of FGM also spreads AIDS, since the lack of medical equipment means that the same sharp object is used repeatedly on many girls. They do not sanitize or in any way wash the cutting object, and you are lucky if they dont toss it into the dirt after using it and before working on the next girl.

I would like to point out, BTW, that slavery too have been pushed underground. Girls are often sold into sex slavery trades and the people responsible have become rather adept at hiding their marks. Sweat-shop slaves are also on the rise in countries like the United States, since the need for them has risen, and there is not enough policing to stop the smugglers.

FGM is a sick practice and should be illegal. But I also think that male circumcision should be outlawed too. At least on babies. If your religion requires it get it done when your an adult. It should be outlawed on babies.

While it is all good and well to talk about cultural issues, i think we are missing the point. FGM and MGM are both done without the consent of the person (as he/she is usually a minor when it is performed). Also in most of these cultures the peer pressure outweighs one's personal preferences. On top of this the UN should not just ban everything, but give people the chance to choose when they have matured enough to think for themselves. I believe that FGM or MGM should not be banned, but rather the resolution should be amended to include a clause that states that the person can elect to perform FGM/MGM on his/herself after the age of 21 (where she/he is legally an adult). I vote AGAINST, until the resolution is amended.

I believe that FGM or MGM should not be banned, but rather the resolution should be amended to include a clause that states that the person can elect to perform FGM/MGM on his/herself after the age of 21 (where she/he is legally an adult). I vote AGAINST, until the resolution is amended.

The resolution doesn't ban FGM. It asks governments to educate people in the dangers - it is still the citizens' choice.

[If I got paid a pound every time someone said this was ban, I'd be able to pay off my student loans by now... :roll:]

We at Signamarcheix are pleased to see such a revolutionary resolution such as the latest one on Female Genital Mutilation. We are also told that we use too much sarcasm. We are proud to be one of the few that voted 'no' on this ridiculous proposal. We cannot believe that such an issue would even come up in the U.N. let alone have support by a 13-1 margin.

The most outrageous part of it is where it mentions that FGM is often done without the permission of the person. Male circumcisions are performed on babies at the request of parents and NOT the individual to whom they are done. They are also suspected to lead to increased risk or ED or impotance and yet nothing is done about this practice. It is very commonplace. Any resolution about FGM should need to include proper information about Male Genital Mutation. Male Genital Mutation is from the "higher cultures." This resolution clearly dicriminates against some and favors others.

This is the worst resolution that I have ever seen mentioned. At least the ones that people make to nuke other countries that piss them off are funny and don't take themselves seriously. On the scale of 1 to 100 of U.N. credibility, with 1 being the Cuban Missle Crisis and 100 being the Rwandan Massacres, this awful resolution takes a 95 for worthless. DOWN WITH THE UN!

Safalra, I don't suppose it's possible to add to the FAQ, a bit about basic female anatomy? Even given that many posters are young and male, you'd expect them to know what a clitoris was and why slicing it off is a good deal more inhumane than male circumcision. :roll:

Firstly, I want to say something about MGM, or male circumcision as it is also called.

Male circumcision is NOT the same heinous practice that is done to girls. By performing the act on infants, as it is done, the male children RARELY suffer from long term health problems and have little pain from the procedure.

It IS a required religious act for some, and others like myself who opted for this procedure for my own child, did it so that father and son could look the same. It promotes cleanliness of the male genitalia, and there is lessened instances of irritation and infection since the foreskin is where most young boys have get either.

Now granted, the procedure was a throw back of the Victorian era when women who were bathing their boys had issues with pulling back the foreskin. There are also some valid medical reasons for circumcision in some rare cases. But mostly the decision today has alot to do with hygeine and choice. My son looks like his father, and most other boys out there. When he reaches the age where he will see others boy's genitals (ie: PE class when he reaches middle/high school) he will feel 'normal'.

Unlike FGM, where the woman's clitoris is removed, or worse versions where her vaginal openings are sewn together, male circumcision is very safe. Men do not generally have problems with erections, or perfoming sexual acts. Women who have suffered FGM do suffer from arousal problems, as well as pain when engaged in sex. This is providing that the act itself does not cause severe infection and kill them.

If male children were to wait until they were adults to have this procedure, there is significant pain and increased probability of problems arising from the procedure. Adult men will have highly sensitized sexual organs (unlike when they are merely a few days old) and there is a larger area that needs to be cut.

I support that FGM must be tackled and hopefully eradicated. My objections with this proposal is that it does not go far enough to assist the girls who will undergo this act. Hence why I have repeatedly called for education to include medical treatment and supplies. Hopefully by providing both, the instances of AIDS and other complications can be reduced severely. So that by the time education to end the act becomes effective, more girls will have survived this torturous process.

good resolution- gets my support, and I'd urge my delegate to support it if he had not already.

The resolution wrongly refers to male circumcision as ‘safe’, which should not be enshrined by the UN. Male circumcision is genital mutilation too, and while not as extreme, circumsized males have lower tolerance for pain

With the medical condition of an overly tight foreskin (I still haven't found out the technical name for it...), circumcision is the only treatment and it reduces pain.Sure, but that doesn’t make it ‘safe’. Triple-bypass surgery is sometimes necessary, and survived by most, but that doesn’t make it safe. Beyond that, circumcision isn’t necessary to deal with frenulum breve as it isn’t the only treatment: http://www.circumstitions.com/Frenbrev.html.

Do a search on ‘death by circumcision’ — there are numerous unnecessary deaths every year. Despite better conditions and practices in general than FGM, male circumcision likely kills more because of the sheer numbers involved. Were the word ‘safe’ removed from the resolution, I could see voting for it, despite my other qualms (though putting ‘Education’ in the title would go a long way to that, nevermind stopping all the anti-ban posts).

I also suggest you do a search on ‘foreskin reconstruction’, as those who worked to regrow a foreskin are probably the best judges of what the difference is.

and statistically a higher predisposition towards violence and rape.
Really? I've never heard that one before.It’s generally assumed to be because of the lowered pain threshold in circumcised men.

I don’t think male circumcision has to be dealt with in the same resolution (which your responses suggest is what you read), but by noting it as ‘safe’, you have already done so. I didn’t say it should be added before I could support your resolution, but that including it and calling it safe means I cannot support the resolution as much as I agree that FGM is a serious problem that must be dealt with.

Male Genital Mutation is from the "higher cultures." This resolution clearly dicriminates against some and favors others.

The difference between a religion and a cult is that a religion has grown too big to safely criticise. An resolution seen as anti-semitic would have no chance of passing.

We of Equinus will gladly support the FGM proposal! We believe it to be a disgusting practice and dangerous to the female involved.

Quote: "Male circumcision is NOT the same heinous practice that is done to girls. By performing the act on infants, as it is done, the male children RARELY suffer from long term health problems and have little pain from the procedure. " End Quote

Not true! Infants feel pain just as much as adults! MGM is akin to cutting a few lines on your arm and then ripping the skin off. Except that it's on the penis which is much more sensitive. Topical anestetics are not often used and even with their use, it is still an incredibly painful procedure. If an adult has it done they are given a general. Some would argue that decreased sexual sensitivity, skin adhesions, lower pain threshhold, risk of infection, bent penises due to to much foreskin being removed and etc. etc. etc. ARE long term health problems.

Many Fish_monger's were previously undecided about this, but after a few cases of beer and a couple of shrimp cocktails we have decided that there will be an outright ban on it in our little neck of the sea and want to see all genital mutilation outlawed for those under 21.

One of the Many (still somewhat drunk) Fish_Monger's

We like the resolution. You can't back off all the time, even if it 'might drive things underground'. A too passive attitude to have anyway.

Could I just ask one question? how does condemning (not even banning) something only done by a small amount of people have a strong effect? I'm sorry if this was already covered, but I don't really have time to shift through nine pages to find out.

Could I just ask one question? how does condemning (not even banning) something only done by a small amount of people have a significant effect? I'm sorry if this was already covered, but I don't really have time to shift through nine pages to find out.

The first step in eradicating anything is to set a framework. This resolution aims to do that regarding FGM, meaning that UN members will be sending a collective message to the world that FGM is not acceptable.

However, in areas of culture sensitivity is required and going out with an all out ban, would be completely counterproductive. One cannot simply demand a change in culture since those who practice it, even though we might find it distasteful see this practice as normal. By demanding change little will be accomplished because any culture will defend its beliefs in the same way as someone might defend a particular religion.

Through education however a populous is shown how their practices affect each other and proving the long-term damage it can do. In this way hopefully, as intellect begin to win over emotion, social change begins. Debates begin between individuals who previously silently disagreed and who now find an avenue for expression and methods to argue their beliefs.

I believe this resolution shows excellent social conscience with sensitivity to individual nations cultures and recognises that legislation is not always the answer to resolving issues in the world.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Lee Kuan Yu would like to withdraw our last comment. We have since consulted my ministers and advisors and wholeheartedly support the re-education of the cultures that practise this inhumane act. We understand that FGM is unecessary and barbaric act in which the victim is often left in permanently in agony.

Could I just ask one question? how does condemning (not even banning) something only done by a small amount of people have a significant effect?

See the FAQ in the first post in this thread.

I'm sorry if this was already covered, but I don't really have time to shift through nine pages to find out.

...or even the first post. :roll:

The Council of Enn would like to register its full support of this proposal. This is assuredly a step in the right direction for all.

I, HRH King Wight of The Constitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis, frown upon genital mutilation of woman. Any form of action taken during childhood that might harm or damage that citizen’s future liberty to follow and enjoy his or her own choice of lifestyle or life in general is to be discouraged.

However, I am also very alert to cultural and religious freedom issues. The majority of people living in my kingdom still practice a vaguely conventional form of child rearing based on parent-child relationships, and I am hesitant to allow my state to take over the role of parent and judge what is best for a child.

Only where the parent is judged to not be of a fit mind, or to not have their child’s best interests at heart will I support the state to interfere with child rearing. Most of these issues can be dealt with by education, and the I fully supports increased education in this area.

I hold little concern for male circumcision, finding that it has no medical problems and can indeed be mildly beneficial for cleanliness reasons (no doubt the reason why it was absorbed into Jewish cleanliness laws in the first place). It is not judged that male circumcision affects the individual’s life in any significant way deserving of state attention. Male circumcision is common in the Monarchy of Lambinis, and not only amongst our Jewish population.

Female Genital Mutilation, by contrast, seems to be a clear attempt to force future adults into a sexual lifestyle that may not be of their choosing and thus conflicts with the concepts of liberty held dear by me and my nation.

Whilst shying from passing any of my sovereignty to the UN and thus not becoming a UN member of yet, I support this resolution and look with keen eyes to any further action taken against FGM by the UN.

HRH King Wight
Constitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis

Im not sure what Im voting for on this one.
Initially, i voted for the motion. Then the reply said Gasmen have voted for FGM.
By voting "for", am I voting for FGM or voting for banning FGM?
You can see the difference, n'est pas
:?

Granted, male circumcision can also pose problems, and it is still (I assume) painful, the reasons behind male circumsision and FGM are completely different. Males are circumcised for hygenic reasons and to correct certain health problems. FGM is done because it is believed to make a woman a better wife. The idea is that, since women who have undergone FGM generally cannot take pleasure in sex, so they will be unlikely to be unfaithful to their husbands. Male circumcision is generally done in a hospital with sterile tools and anesthesia. FGM is usually not done in a hospital, and the victims generally do not have the benefit of any analagesis or anesthetics. Male circumcision is usually done in infancy, or occasionally done by choice in adulthood. FGM is usually done to young women, who will remember the pain for the rest of their lives. I am willing to bet that it is never done by choice.

The reasons and practice of the two procedures are entirely different. The only real similarities are that both involve sexual organs and that both are referred to occasionally as 'circumcision.'

Granted, male circumcision can also pose problems, and it is still (I assume) painful, the reasons behind male circumsision and FGM are completely different. Males are circumcised for hygenic reasons and to correct certain health problems. FGM is done because it is believed to make a woman a better wife. The idea is that, since women who have undergone FGM generally cannot take pleasure in sex, so they will be unlikely to be unfaithful to their husbands. Male circumcision is generally done in a hospital with sterile tools and anesthesia. FGM is usually not done in a hospital, and the victims generally do not have the benefit of any analagesis or anesthetics. Male circumcision is usually done in infancy, or occasionally done by choice in adulthood. FGM is usually done to young women, who will remember the pain for the rest of their lives. I am willing to bet that it is never done by choice.

The reasons and practice of the two procedures are entirely different. The only real similarities are that both involve sexual organs and that both are referred to occasionally as 'circumcision.'

Could I just ask one question? how does condemning (not even banning) something only done by a small amount of people have a significant effect?

See the FAQ in the first post in this thread.

I'm sorry if this was already covered, but I don't really have time to shift through nine pages to find out.

...or even the first post. :roll:

No I really don't see where in the first post it answers my question. Why does this proposal have the strongest possible effect s proposal can have?

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan feels that this topic, vote and resolution are nothing more then a trick. Had this been brought up as a pure Human Rights issue, the Clan would have followed the lead of the section we live in. However, this this issue was brought forth by a State who has a poor Civil Rights history AND because of the attempts to include Social Reforms via Verbal restriction the Clan is voting against this suggsted law.

While it is true that this "act" of FGM could be turned into a crime against females; the reality is cultures should be free to interact with their peoples. Making it a crime only distances the "advanced" culture from the "primitive" culture...and it seems that this suggested law is truely that an act meant to destroy a primitive culture for its failure to "accept" all the strange taboo of the more advanced cultures. However, The Rabbit Clan is impressed with the focus of education...only throgh providing instructions into the biological effects and through the massive knowledge expanding within the general population of such cultures will the desired results be seen.

It is not the place of the UN, or any of its members to loss sight of the fact that all the States are not alike and a majority who might think alike DO NOT have the right to assume that since they are the majority they are right. This suggested law, and others like it, is an insult to all of the UN and to the nations that are unwittingly not included in the majority (either through act, deed or thought). This insult can best be seen in act three of this suggested law...

No UN statement should _ever_ include any verbage that attempts to change the tone, written or thought words of any State. One could discuss for days the impact of FGM upon a society...most reasons would be accepted by the Rabbit Clan. Protest would be given on this topic and The Rabbit Clan would have voted for a ban, re-education and even donated to the funding of such programs. However, since the the suggested law includes attempts to limit or if you prefer censor words from from The Rabbit Clan and other UN states we have been left with no other option but to vote against.

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan strongly suggst that all UN members relook at what is truely being asked in this suggested law. Is it to protect the rights of females or is it really an attempt to start making the States slaves to aspects of the Advanced Majority. What is really being forced upon them?

FGM might be wrong....but Thought Crime is not a crime. No censoring of words belongs in a Human Rights act. Deny this act and The Rabbit Clan will be the first to suggest a _pure_ Human Rights statement to offer protection through education to the females of the world.

Do not be swayed into giving up your State's right to think and discuss things how it chooses. Destruction of words is the first set to being made a slave. :twisted:

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan feels that this topic, vote and resolution are nothing more then a trick. Had this been brought up as a pure Human Rights issue, the Clan would have followed the lead of the section we live in. However, this this issue was brought forth by a State who has a poor Civil Rights history AND because of the attempts to include Social Reforms via Verbal restriction the Clan is voting against this suggsted law.

While it is true that this "act" of FGM could be turned into a crime against females; the reality is cultures should be free to interact with their peoples. Making it a crime only distances the "advanced" culture from the "primitive" culture...and it seems that this suggested law is truely that an act meant to destroy a primitive culture for its failure to "accept" all the strange taboo of the more advanced cultures. However, The Rabbit Clan is impressed with the focus of education...only throgh providing instructions into the biological effects and through the massive knowledge expanding within the general population of such cultures will the desired results be seen.

It is not the place of the UN, or any of its members to loss sight of the fact that all the States are not alike and a majority who might think alike DO NOT have the right to assume that since they are the majority they are right. This suggested law, and others like it, is an insult to all of the UN and to the nations that are unwittingly not included in the majority (either through act, deed or thought). This insult can best be seen in act three of this suggested law...

No UN statement should _ever_ include any verbage that attempts to change the tone, written or thought words of any State. One could discuss for days the impact of FGM upon a society...most reasons would be accepted by the Rabbit Clan. Protest would be given on this topic and The Rabbit Clan would have voted for a ban, re-education and even donated to the funding of such programs. However, since the the suggested law includes attempts to limit or if you prefer censor words from from The Rabbit Clan and other UN states we have been left with no other option but to vote against.

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan strongly suggst that all UN members relook at what is truely being asked in this suggested law. Is it to protect the rights of females or is it really an attempt to start making the States slaves to aspects of the Advanced Majority. What is really being forced upon them?

FGM might be wrong....but Thought Crime is not a crime. No censoring of words belongs in a Human Rights act. Deny this act and The Rabbit Clan will be the first to suggest a _pure_ Human Rights statement to offer protection through education to the females of the world.

Do not be swayed into giving up your State's right to think and discuss things how it chooses. Destruction of words is the first set to being made a slave. :twisted:

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan feels that this topic, vote and resolution are nothing more then a trick. Had this been brought up as a pure Human Rights issue, the Clan would have followed the lead of the section we live in. However, this this issue was brought forth by a State who has a poor Civil Rights history AND because of the attempts to include Social Reforms via Verbal restriction the Clan is voting against this suggsted law.

While it is true that this "act" of FGM could be turned into a crime against females; the reality is cultures should be free to interact with their peoples. Making it a crime only distances the "advanced" culture from the "primitive" culture...and it seems that this suggested law is truely that an act meant to destroy a primitive culture for its failure to "accept" all the strange taboo of the more advanced cultures. However, The Rabbit Clan is impressed with the focus of education...only throgh providing instructions into the biological effects and through the massive knowledge expanding within the general population of such cultures will the desired results be seen.

It is not the place of the UN, or any of its members to loss sight of the fact that all the States are not alike and a majority who might think alike DO NOT have the right to assume that since they are the majority they are right. This suggested law, and others like it, is an insult to all of the UN and to the nations that are unwittingly not included in the majority (either through act, deed or thought). This insult can best be seen in act three of this suggested law...

No UN statement should _ever_ include any verbage that attempts to change the tone, written or thought words of any State. One could discuss for days the impact of FGM upon a society...most reasons would be accepted by the Rabbit Clan. Protest would be given on this topic and The Rabbit Clan would have voted for a ban, re-education and even donated to the funding of such programs. However, since the the suggested law includes attempts to limit or if you prefer censor words from from The Rabbit Clan and other UN states we have been left with no other option but to vote against.

The Shogun of The Rabbit Clan strongly suggst that all UN members relook at what is truely being asked in this suggested law. Is it to protect the rights of females or is it really an attempt to start making the States slaves to aspects of the Advanced Majority. What is really being forced upon them?

FGM might be wrong....but Thought Crime is not a crime. No censoring of words belongs in a Human Rights act. Deny this act and The Rabbit Clan will be the first to suggest a _pure_ Human Rights statement to offer protection through education to the females of the world.

Do not be swayed into giving up your State's right to think and discuss things how it chooses. Destruction of words is the first set to being made a slave. :twisted:

However, this this issue was brought forth by a State who has a poor Civil Rights history

Excuse me? I've got the third *highest* civil rights level possible.

We damand you retract this slur on our country. Especially as it comes from a country with only 'some' civil rights.

We support this resolution. Female genital mutilation is so disgusting that something needs to be done against it.
If the education programs are not going to work we suggest going further and banning it completly.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

My nation votes against the resolution. Not because of the subject matter, but for the way the resolution was written. it is FAR to general. The way the resolution reads, it would also ban those women who CHOOSE to have such things done to them, and further, it would ban the choice of a woman to even have something as simple as a piercing in that area (Mutilation, by definition, is ANYTHING that would pierce or mar the fesh there).

In short, while I agree with the spirit of this resolution, it is so poorly worded that I CANNOT vote for this. My suggestion is that the resolution be withdrawn, re-written, and the resubmitted with more clear terms.

- Polecat

It is impossible for my country to support such a blatent attempt at opening the door for more overwhelming removals of freedom of speech rights. Therefore i have voted no.

The way the resolution reads, it would also ban those women who CHOOSE to have such things done to them,

It doesn't ban it in any case, as you'd see if you read it properly. And if you'd read this thread properly, you'd see we've dealt with the issue of piercing. :roll:

The Empire Of Meatymeat will *not* support this resolution.

Genital 'mutilation', or 'female circumcision' is cultural within some nations. Whilst I personally find the practice barbaric, and condemn it totally, it's the principal of the resolution that I disagree with, and will not support.

Once legislation is passed allowing governments to start defining cultures, who's to draw the line in the sand stating how far governing bodies may go?

We'll find governments legislating against certain styles of clothes, music, arts, literature, and more next, denying people their democratic right to express their culture, and opinions.

It is impossible for my country to support such a blatent attempt at opening the door for more overwhelming removals of freedom of speech rights. Therefore i have voted no.

You said WHAT?!

Freedom of SPEECH!? FGM is Female Genital Mutilation, not some removal of free speech rights! Free speech is an issue that should come up in your OWN nation - not in a U.N. forum!

Read the resolution! Read the thread! And don't think that educating people about the risks and short/long-term effects of FGM is an attempt to reduce civil rights! In fact, it's an attempt to increase civil rights! Come on!

the Hiio objects to article three:

the risks of a medical male circumcision are almost 50% of a potentially serious infection

It is NOT necessary in 99.99% of males

by population, the societies which would percieve FGM ban as discrimination agains them far outnumber Jews

originially Judaism required female genital mutilation

accidents in male circumcision are actually quite common

it takes significantly LONGER for circumcised men to recover from many STDs

if too much of the foreskin is removed there is risk of penile dislocation during sex, which is impossible in uncircumcised men

also, what about other mutilation? many cultures force tattoos, brands, and gender reassignment for intersexuals (hermaphrodites)

the Hiio will not vote and will not accept the ban until other forms of involuntary mutilation, sexual and nonsexual, are also addressed

Just as a note this proposal is passing with a 10.68:1 ration in favor... This is the single highest ration of support:against for any resolution listed under passed resolutions ((so probably in NS history?)). Point of information the lowest support:against ration was 1.013 set be "40 Hour Work Week".

Anywho, to the point... Have there been any sane and reasonable objections to this proposal?

the Hiio objects to article three:
it takes significantly LONGER for circumcised men to recover from many STDs

But it makes it harder for them to catch it. Studies of African tribes show that those that practice circumcision catch AIDs less frequency. The majority of contractions of AIDs involves the AIDs virus being soaked into the foreskin, despite the urethra being an alterntive method of transmission it is a less likely one.

also, what about other mutilation? many cultures force tattoos, brands, and gender reassignment for intersexuals (hermaphrodites)

These issues also need addressing, this is agreed.

HRM King wight
Constitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis

I feel that the topic of FGM is quite a difficult one, considering the cultural and socio-political ramifications that lie upon the topic. Whilst true, that FGM is a cultural practice that is outright disdained within western culture. The culture of which is lies is has had it sustained for hundreds upon hundreds of years. How I ask can that be ignored? While yes, it is a brutal and harsh treatment upon women of all races. Should not the governing country have a right to either police that practice or condemn it entirely? Yes, there are many points within this resolution that are prudent. Such as having this act performed upon women that are unwilling, that it can and has caused death and so on. Yet, I feel that the choice should remain of whether the woman in question should wish to go through with such a thing or not. I agree that it is not a ban upon the practice entirely. And so, I agree with the resolution, with only the addendum that the choice is there to be made upon whether the act is to be performed upon the woman as per an individual basis.

I feel many valid issues have been raised by FGM and in its principle concerns, I do not disagree with the proposal.

My disagreement with this resolution has been ENTIRELY about how we choose to help the cultures who do this to their GIRLS.

The issue of MALE CIRCUMCISION is not debateable. To condemn and/or ban said practice would be a direct discrimination against the religious cultures that endorse the practice and require it for their male children.

I stand by my statement that male infants do NOT suffer as much to circumcisions as they would once they reach adulthood. A newborn's body is still developing and the number of nerve endings are not as numerous. Their pain is less and there is greater threat of problems for circumcisions peformed as the child gets older. Adult males suffer the greatest threat from circumcision.

No ESTABLISHED religion currently requires FGM, but it is often tied heavily to religious and social rites of passages. Education to teach these people about the health threats of the procedure can not be successful if we do nothing to help eliminate some of that threat. Therefore I feel it is IMPERATIVE to offer medical services along with education.

No abortion clinic performs their procedures without education (about the procedure, the risks, alternative solutions, counselling, and birth control). Why couldnt we do the same with FGM?

The resolution "Female Genital Mutilation" was passed, 14778 votes to 1360, and implemented in all UN member nations.

This is a 91.5% majority, making it the most successful resolution in UN history.

[You know, we could ask the mods to archive this thread as an example of how resolutions should be done... :D]

Yay! passed! [throws party]

This was a very good resolution, one that addressed an issue that truly needed to be dealt with. Huge majority vote, too.

Just as a note this proposal is passing with a 10.68:1 ration in favor... This is the single highest ration of support:against for any resolution listed under passed resolutions ((so probably in NS history?)). Point of information the lowest support:against ration was 1.013 set be "40 Hour Work Week".

Anywho, to the point... Have there been any sane and reasonable objections to this proposal?

I think my objection was reasonable:
How does condemning something rarely done have a strong effect?

Just as a note this proposal is passing with a 10.68:1 ration in favor... This is the single highest ration of support:against for any resolution listed under passed resolutions ((so probably in NS history?)). Point of information the lowest support:against ration was 1.013 set be "40 Hour Work Week".

Anywho, to the point... Have there been any sane and reasonable objections to this proposal?

I think my objection was reasonable:
How does condemning something rarely done have a strong effect?

It has a strong effect on those who would have suffered from mutilation if it wasn't banned. And that'd what counts.

Condemning and BANNING are two different things.

This resolution did NOT ban FGM.