Georgia father GUILTY in female 'circumcision' trial

[Bluebear]

LAWRENCEVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- A jury found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty Wednesday of mutilating his 2-year-old daughter in what is believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition of female circumcision.

Khalid Adem, 30, was convicted of aggravated battery and cruelty to children. He could get up to 40 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Adem used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in his family's Atlanta-area apartment in 2001. The child's mother, Fortunate Adem, said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/01/female.circumcision.ap/

[Marnieworld]

1. Good

40 years is appropriate. He damaged her permanently. Newsflash: you aren't in Africa anymore.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. We need to draw a strong line when it comes to things like this

and not write it off to "being accepting of different cultures"

[wicket]

Amen!!!

:kick:

[silverweb]

3. I'm glad he was convicted, but....

I don't think prison is a constructive punishment at all. It will just mean another family destroyed, ostracized, and thrown into poverty without his support. It will not educate immigrants about the prohibition here against this kind of mutiliation, regardless of the tradition in their home countries.

I think a more appropriate punishment for Mr. Adem, who is in his most productive years, would be to have him educated and then made to do community service among immigrant groups, teaching them just why this barbaric tradition is wrong and is prohibited here.

[Warpy]

7. Perhaps he WILL end up educating people from his country

about the brutality of that practice, but I doubt he'll get educated himself until his mutilated daughter grows up into a life of pain and genital dysfunction.

He'll have to do his educating from prison. In the meantime, I don't want him anywhere NEAR girl children.

[Critters2]

41. Prison is exactly where he belongs

People who lack empathy should not be allowed out in society.

[cally]

4. How did the prosecuters prove his guilt

The article does not convince me that he is guilty.

[ThomCat]

6. I'm guessing that they had a doctor confirm the damage.

And used her testimony that Dad did it. In the absense of any other possible suspect her testimony would be very hard to dismiss.

[rug]

87. Except she was 2 when it happened. She could not possibly recall it.

[William769]

8. Maybe thats why there was a trial.

This is just an article.

[ThomCat]

5. Hell, Yes!

Can I say that in capital letters? HELL,YES! The whole idea that anyone could consider this good for the child sickens me.

And he thought this mutilation was so damned important that he did it himself, with household scissors, in his home! If you can't even find a doctor willing to do it for money then that should be your first damned clue!

x(

[Tanuki]

9. I find it odd that the mother claims she didn't know about it

until more than a year later.

[latebloomer]

15. Beyond odd!

This all sounds very fishy. And the father's lawyer implied that the mother's family did it?!?

[pitohui]

76. why how much time did your mom spend staring at your genitals?

i don't think that part is odd at all honestly but i'm from the south, is that a sad comment or what

a true native born southern lady could manage to not notice this had happened for, i don't know, 40 or 50 years or so

[LostinVA]

10. For the men reading this who are kinda "meh" about it:

Imagine being two years old, and having your Dad using scissors and hacking off your penis at the very root, and testicles.

(There are always a few posters in FGM threads that act all "meh" about it.)

[William769]

12. Are you a mind reader?

[LostinVA]

19. Excuse me?

[ThomCat]

31. She's right. On every thread I've seen

about female genital mutilation there have been men who dismiss or belittle the seriousness of it as if it's just like circumcision.

[BoneDaddy]

30. Excuse me

What men are "meh" about it? I tell ya you live in a sick place if you think that.

[ThomCat]

33. She's commenting accurately on past threads.

[Iris]

51. DU can be a sick place sometimes.

[Megahurtz]

11. God how horrible. n/t

[devilgrrl]

13. Good!

Put him away for the rest of time!

[Selatius]

14. When is it OK to judge a cultural tradition of others as inferior?

We like to talk about hijabs and burqas, but we don't talk about female circumcision.

[William769]

18. Self delete.

[LostinVA]

20. There have been quite a few threads about it

Sometimes, quite flamey!

[etherealtruth]

46. How can a conversation about female genital mutilation be flamey?

If anyone here was not HORRIFIED by it ... just lie to me, I don't want to know that even exists here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. ...

"We like to talk about hijabs and burqas, but we don't talk about female circumcision."

Do you suppose maybe that's because we're talking about two different issues from two different cultures?

[Selatius]

39. With respect to inferiority vs. superiority, no

With respect to weighing different cultural traditions and views relative to views such as the notion of equality of the sexes and tolerance, I don't discriminate based on where these traditions are practiced. I could've just as easily mentioned the killing of baby girls in China in favor of boys or something such as the caste system in India.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. All the time.

Saying "it's a cultural tradition" doesn't mean a practice isn't immoral. Most liberals are far too unwilling to condemn behaviour in other cultures that they would be up in arms about if it happened in America.

"Objective morality" is a tautology. If you don't apply your principles evenhandedly everywhere then they're not principles, just prejudices.

[riderinthestorm]

59. Thank you, and to Selatius as well. I've argued this all along. Mental cruelty and oppression

by a culture are objectionable as well as FGM.

:applause:

Cultural apologists are not doing anyone any favors by continuing to excuse behavior under the guise of "live and let live" or "it's their choice (cough)".

Oppression of women and girls in any form should be condemned. Unfortunately I've discovered that more than a few DUers can't understand that, wrapping themselves in "tolerance of multiculturalism" even as said multiculturalism seriously undermines women's lives.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Here. nt

[kiahzero]

62. When it's non-consenual and irreversible, in the case of children. (n/t)

[riderinthestorm]

65. But these cultures indoctrinate their children

so they grow up with the belief that this sort of damage is okay, no it's actually more than okay, they firmly believe FGM makes the female genital region more "attractive" and "hygienic" and "more marriageable". That this mental construct is inculcated into these children can be argued to be "non-consensual and irreversible". Words like "choice" lose all meaning in these kinds of cultures - the girls and women in this culture typically ALL say they WANTED this procedure if you ask them (and I have). They want this procedure to such a degree that they are willing to take a pair of scissors and chop off their own daughter's clitoris. Can you understand they have been indoctrinated?

You do know right, that the women of these cultures usually perform these procedures. You can't honestly believe the man in this case performed this do you?

I mean, the mother who changed this baby's diapers, bathed her, taught her to be toilet trained etc. etc. didn't notice the damage for a year??! Tell me you aren't this naive. The mother performed the deed. What's really surprising about this case is that the father is going to actually take the rap - usually the woman would swing since in most patriarchal cultures, she is expendable.

[kiahzero]

72. So you get to decide what women do with their bodies, then?

I thought that was one of the main arguments for reproductive choice.

Back to reality, where I'm not as dumb as you're making me out to be, the point is that it's very rare that a child could consent in a meaningful sense to much of anything their parents want (most parents are rather coercive about getting what they want). Hence why there's the additional consideration of irreversibility.

[riderinthestorm]

77. Control over women's bodies is at the heart of patriarchal culture

So you are also okay with the whole cultural thang?

Physical harm = bad, mental harm = multiculturally okay?

We rail at fundy parents who indoctrinate their children yet somehow when it comes to other religious traditions that oppress women (irreversibly for the majority of them), it somehow becomes okay.

These are muddy waters. I don't dispute that. But be clear on what you are advocating.

[kiahzero]

78. I don't support indoctrination

That doesn't mean that I believe that the government has the power to do anything about it.

[riderinthestorm]

81. But WE have the power to fight it. And I do.

I just wrote off to mondojoe that I am fighting a huge head cold and I have a very heavy day at work tomorrow. I will bow out of the discussion and salute you for some really great points.

Peace.

[kiahzero]

83. My apologies

I thought we were talking about government intervention against such indoctrination, rather than acting as private citizens.

[mondo joe]

64. It's not a matter of inferiority, but of permanent harm to a non-consenting

person.

I don't care what adults choose to do to themselves.

This does not fit that description.

[riderinthestorm]

66. Permanent physical harm is not okay, but permanent mental oppression as second class women is okay?

The culture indoctrinates the females of this culture to accept this practice, to embrace it, to pass it on to their girl children.

But if you are consistent with your prior arguments, you would posit that it's their "choice" as a culture, right? To "choose" to be second status? To "choose" to make their girl babies more "attractive", "marriageable" and "hygenienic"?

You can't just point to physical harm = bad, but indoctrination (mental harm, oppression) = multiculturally okay!

[mondo joe]

67. Mental oppression is harder to quantify.

My position is that no one should be forced to dress (or not dress) in any particular way.

You can't prove what is or isn't the choice of an individual. You may argue someone is indoctrinated, but so are we all.

I don't give a shit about CULTURAL choice - just individual choice.

[riderinthestorm]

68. Cultural choice, indoctrination, individual choice

Yup tricky lines. That mother's individual choice was to cut her baby. It was also a cultural choice dictated by her religion and the pressures of her society - pressures exerted by her community here in the US by the way.

But THAT is where the crux of the disagreement lies between you and I. I believe these patriarchal religions/cultures/traditions are detrimental to women. Period.

I think I can PROVE that. In fact, I believe it has been proven over and over in study after study.

In the example of clothing, it is a major part of how patriarchal cultures/religions/traditions exert their power over women.

[mondo joe]

69. Her individual choice ends at permanent harm to her daughter's body.

I believe people have the right to make their own choices about their own bodies without your approval.

I'm pro choice.

It's that simple.

[riderinthestorm]

70. But permanent harm to her psyche is okay?

Just making it clear that you are okay with permanent psychological damage being raised as a second class citizen? Cause that's the argument you are making. Physical damage = bad, mental damage = multiculturally okay!

You do know that veiling occurs at age 9 for girls in this cultures. Same age that Ayesha was married to Mohammed. That is considered the age of maturity so they must be swathed on their birthday.

Girls. Age 9. Veiled as mature women. And this isn't damaging to their psyche?

It's all about "choice" but when you have to confront the reality of allowing "choices" in this culture it's not so simple imho.

[mondo joe]

74. Again, harm to the "psyche" is hard to quantify.

I'm not okay with any inequality before the law.

You are free to indoctrinate your children, others are free to indoctrinate theirs.

Your right to raise your children as you see fit rests on others having the freedom to do the same.

[riderinthestorm]

79. So...

"raise your children as you see fit" could mean that FGM is part and parcel of that freedom.

Right?

Mondo Joe, you are a good guy. I can sense that. I am fighting a really nasty head cold and I face an early morning galloping horses at 5 am. I'll take this up with you another day, okay? I'm absolutely sure we will continue the good fight (perhaps tomorrow?)

Peace.

[kiahzero]

80. No, because FGM is irreversible. (n/t)

[riderinthestorm]

85. So is mental harm. nt

[kiahzero]

86. I guess psychologists should close up shop and go home. (n/t)

[mondo joe]

89. Borrowing a page from Elian's cousins?

That's why they wanted to prevent Elian's father from taking him home.

[mondo joe]

88. Straw man.

I've already stated that that passes the limit.

There is a right of parents to raise their children as they see fit to some ill defined limit. Parents can raise their children to not believe in medicine, but if they fail to get treatment for an ill child who dies they are liable for the death.

I could offer other examples.

As a gay parent I feel particularly aware that others can have moral objections and all sorts of arguments against other parents' choices. There is a limit, but it's pretty far out.

[riderinthestorm]

91. "Ill defined limit". That is absolutely perfect.

Children who are raised to believe that it's okay to be sexually mutilated, or okay to be swathed in garments from head to toe - expected to be seen as sexual objects, yes, these children aren't going to die (although to be fair, there are a certain percentage of children who DO die under these "ill defined limits" but hell, that's where the boundaries become muddy eh?)

But they are going to be subject to mental battery imho.

But see, that's the thing: it's an "ill defined limit". I believe all religious dogma, especially anything that indoctrinates children into misogynist beliefs is beyond the limit.

Obviously you don't. And seriously, I can't believe you are putting forth your own experience as a gay parent and comparing it to veiling children and/or FGM - as though that "ill defined limit" can't have some real parameters. We disagree on what's appropriate "indoctrination", clearly you are setting your parameters "pretty far out". Mine are pretty "far in" when it comes to patriarchal religious influences, especially as it concerns children and women.

Anyway, I'm out of the discussion for now. Peace again.

[mondo joe]

93. Beyond the limit for which purposes? Legal?

You want government to decide which parenting is okay? Which religions are okay?

[Nabia2004]

16. Is male circumcision still ok?

Of course you can always find a doctor that will claim it is ok.

[Bluebear]

17. Well, this is more than you need to know about my penis...

...but it's functional and I don't feel mutilated per se. I believe removing the clitoris is quite different from male circumcision.

[LostinVA]

21. Imagine your penis and testicle chopped off

THAT is your equivalent to FGM.

[Bluebear]

22. (as the blood rushes from my brain)

:crazy:

[LostinVA]

23. When I read about this being done with SCISSORS

I literally felt my body cringe... ugh.

[Bluebear]

24. What body part would NOT be mutilation?

If he carved his girl's eardrum out or something, people would automatically recoil. Why is this so hard to recognize as not cultural but criminal?

[LostinVA]

32. I know -- the disconnect on this issue is tres strange

And, I'm saying that as a veteran of many FGM threads...

[LeftyMom]

26. No, of course not.

:grr:

[Sapphocrat]

25. What's this "circumcision" crap, CNN?

Hacking off a foreskin, male or female, is circumcision. Hacking off a clitoris (or a penis) is genital mutilation.

How dare CNN blur the difference? Bastards.

As for the father, forget prison; I'd rather see an "eye for an eye" apply in this case.

[LeftyMom]

28. It's all genital mutilation

It's just a matter of the extent of the harm done.

[Sapphocrat]

34. Agreed.

I'd be fine with CNN using "genital mutilation" to describe either FGM or circumcision -- but I'm outraged they'd use "circumcision" as a synonym for FGM.

[Bluebear]

29. Thank you, I fixed the headline

I will not use their headline, as male and female circumcision are not in any way analogous.

[Sapphocrat]

37. Nothing wrong with your OP, BB!

What's getting me nuts is CNN calling it "circumcision" when it's really complete genital excision. What he did to that baby girl is no different than removing a baby boy's penis and testicles.

"Circumcision" makes it sound like all he did was remove her clitoral hood. Which in itself would be revolting (and is indeed genital mutiltation), of course, but there's still a big difference between removing a clitoral hood/foreskin and removing the entire clitoris/penis and testicles.

[ContraBass Black]

27. I hope he was guilty.

The article makes it sound questionable.

[elehhhhna]

44. Huh? Did the baby do it herself? Fell down, maybe?

[ContraBass Black]

63. The only proof that it was him and not someone else was the child's

Testimony, according to the article. The child was in the custody of the mother, who claims she didn't notice the mutilation for one year.

[WinkyDink]

36. Finally this is treated as the CRIME it is. There is NO SUCH THING

as female "circumcision". This term is a travesty of both language and medicine.
For one thing, "circum" means "around", obviously applicable only to the male member.
For another, removal of a crucial ORGAN is hardly the equivalent of removal of excess skin.

Scissors?? Pervert. I don't care WHO or WHAT sanctions this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Well, technically...

"female genital mutilation" covers several procedures, including excision of the clitoris (which would be analogous to removal of the penis) and excision of the clitoral hood, which if I remember by physiology would be analogous to removal of the foreskin. Although we're talking about the former in this particular case.

[Pithlet]

45. I know. It's ridiculous.

It is beyond moronic to equate what happened to that little girl with circumcision. But, I see it all the time. I put that argument near the top of of the list of stupid things I see on message boards. It used to infuriate me, but now I just shake my head. What can you do?

[dicknbush]

42. THis is the result of Male dominated cultures...

What an idiot. Well the best thing that can happen is for this to be continually exposed and prosecuted of course getting the families to cooperate may be problematic. I suspect that the wife is in big doodoo with his family. These are the types of things that revenge killings orginate from. THe son somtimes is the main money maker for an extened family that may be in Ethiopia.

[Jacobin]

43. NOT a circumcision. It was a clitorectomy

I'm glad that we prosecute people in this country who maim female children out of a fear that one day they may have an orgasm.

[ismnotwasm]

47. I wonder if the mother had refused to do it?

Generally, in countries where this is practiced, it's the older female performing the mutilation as part of a cultural tradition. Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia (some of the worst cases are in Somalia) are just a few countries where it's fairly widespread.

The way to fight this is education within the cultures and countries themselves. This is hard, not only because it's culturally entrenched, but because of the poverty and lack of education in areas where it's most widely practiced. There are groups that are fighting this, and trying to reach out it's very sad to see it performed in this country. I've spoken with young Ethiopian women circumcised and not. I've met mothers from Eritrea who tried to insist their daughters get mutilated.

Something sadly interesting about the whole thing is female genitalia is considered unclean and unattractive, and the thought in certain areas is that the girls would become unfit for marriage.


The US struggles with the practice, most MD's refuse to do the mutilation, but I do know any labor and delivery unit in any hospital can tell you stories about the complication of birth these mutilations cause. One example is tearing through scar tissue, leading of course to increased bleeding and infection.

[KamaAina]

48. Even assuming one is willing to tolerate the practice itself

on cultural grounds or whatever, there is NO excuse for this man doing it himself, with absolutely no sterilization or anything like that, with SCISSORS. The girl could have died from an infection, or simply from bleeding to death. :grr:

[nomaco-10]

49. Somebody tell me how a mother.....

wouldn't know for an entire year that her toddler baby daughter had been sexually mutilated.
It had to have hurt, she must have cried and whimpered for days, there must have been bloody under panties. The child must have screamed in pain when she urinated and surely pointed to her her "privates" in an effort to communicate her distress to the mother.
Any normal occurrance such as a rash or any thorough bathing would have also revealed she had been mutilated within a very short period of time, no way am I buying the one year scenario.
The mother is not telling the truth.

[gollygee]

52. I thought that was odd too

at two you're still changing diapers, at least for overnight. And toddlers aren't shy about letting their parents know they are in pain.

But someone who would do that to his little girl . . . might he also become violent with an adult woman? Maybe she was too scared to say anything? I don't know if it would be right to go after her because of that.

[sendero]

71. I agree with you..

... but I don't think it would have made any difference. Unless you are contending that the mother participated in the act, which is not what the child testified.

I'm all for respecting other cultures but lets get serious. This is a serious assault. Wearing a burka is not. It is a crime, a serious crime, and a serious consequence is necessary.

[riderinthestorm]

73. It's naive to believe the father did it

The women almost always do it. I haven't heard of any men performing FGM, especially here in the US.

I would guess the child was coached.

And I would state that the burka is a serious assault on women's rights too, a serious crime if you are a real progressive.

[pitohui]

82. but south africans don't do this and north africans do

they say in the article mom is from south africa, dad is from ethiopia?

admit i'm not the most knowledgeable person in this area but i never heard of this being a practice in south africa?

[sendero]

90. Sorry...

... no amount of false analogies will make me think that wearing a garment is comparable to having your sexual nexus permantently physically removed. You can say it, but that doesn't make it so.

[riderinthestorm]

92. Fine. Then don the burka tomorrow since it's just a false analogy. nt

See if wearing it removes you as an entity at all. See if it makes you feel comfortable or uncomfortable. Then get back to us on how you feel as a female under a burka for the rest of your life.

[sendero]

95. God you are thick.

... I could take the burka off, she'll never get her clitoris back. Get a grip.

[focusfan]

50. the man got what he deserved

that is cruel and unusal now the the girl will never have an
Orgasm

[Dorian Gray]

53. The poor, poor little baby.

This makes me want to cry. It is so sad.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I, personally, can't imagine a sentence long enough.

Good riddance.

[Disturbed]

56. I wonder how many times this happens in the US

and no one outside of the family knows about it.

[LostinVA]

58. I thought that, too

[Odin2005]

57. That fucker deserves to have his dick chopped off.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Probably, but I think that 40 years in prison (or the rest of his life, basically) will do

I certainly hope there is no possibility of parole.

[pitohui]

84. well he actually got 10 years

i don't know what to think about it

what he did was evil, irreversible, and wrong but if he were brainwashed all his life to think it was the good and right thing to do?

a sentence of 1-2 years might be enough to get the point across, provide some recognition to the family that the daughter's loss was taken seriously, and still give him a chance to change his life

i don't know what i would have done if i were the judge

if you are made mad by schizophrenia, there is "not guilty by reason of insanity" but if you are made mad by bad religion?

[riderinthestorm]

60. That poor baby.

:cry: She faces a lifetime of gynecological problems.

What's the penalty in their tradition, an eye for an eye? So he should get his dick and his balls chopped off if he really wants to go all "traditional".

[pitohui]

75. oh my god

what is there to be said?

he should not have mutilated his child and he has a sentence to serve but considering he was brainwashed by religion 40 years seems too much, he probably thought he was doing the right thing

this is so hard, i'm glad i'm not a judge at times like these

[Vidar]

94. He deserves a slow, very painful death. Sorry to hear he only got 10 years.