Saturday, July 6, 2013

Liberals now suggesting that campaigns to discourage female genital mutilation among girls in Muslim and N. African populations is now "racist"

BBC
From Eric Dondero: 

That's right. That's the line of reasoning emerging out of the UK to halt efforts to discourage female circumcision. Since white Europeans almost never engage in such practices, and since it's limited to northern African and Muslim immigrants, it must be racist for authorities to enforce laws discouraging circumcision. 

From Spiked on-line Arab News, SALEHA ALI "The NSPCC encourages racist curtain-twitching":
To much fanfare, Britain’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has launched a helpline to protect girls in Britain from female genital mutilation (FGM), or cutting. FGM, as the World Health Organisation defines it, entails ‘procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons’. The logic of campaigners becomes, ‘why stop at a helpline?’. 
As one columnist puts it: ‘Why are not all girls medically examined to see if they have been cut, as happens in France? Why are midwives not obliged to report new mothers who have been cut, with a follow-up investigation by the authorities?’ The outcome of this suspicion-mongering is a form of racist curtain-twitching and official monitoring, which is unlikely to stop anyone determined to circumcise their daughters but is likely to divide communities. It seems that the objectionable and irrational actions of a small minority of individuals has served as a pretext for official fantasies about the savagery and barbarism of dark-skinnned communities in Britain.
Editor's comment - So, what's next? Enforcing laws against Muslims cutting people's hands off for stealing in the UK, is a form of "racism"? It's another case of the invading culture refusing to assimilate to the Western culture, and instead demanding that we in the West assimilate to theirs on our own land.

11 comments:

blackandgoldfan said...

How any mother who has carried a child for nine months could actually participate in such barbarism (and many do by helping hold the child) makes me nauseous.

Where's Amnesty International? Where's the UN? WHERE ARE ALL THE FUCKING LIBS WHO RAIL ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN????? Forgot...they're too busy trying to tell us Americans what's best for our children.

Jagoffs....

Eric Dondero said...

It doesn't fit the template. I'm more concerned about my fellow so-called libertarians.

WHERE THE FUCK IS REASON?

WHERE IN THE HELL IS CATO?

AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY???

They all claim to be for human liberty. Looks like they're selectively for liberty. Criticizing Muslims doesn't fit their left-libertarian template.

KN@PPSTER said...

I can see why it's an issue they'd want to avoid.

You can't credibly oppose female genital mutilation without opposing male genital mutilation as well. And male genital mutilation is big in America.

blackandgoldfan said...

Do you think that some with left leanings view being a libertarian as the trend du jour and chic? Kinda like when pregnancy among teenagers was viewed as "cool". Just a thought. I get those occasionally. :-D

mitsukurina said...

"You can't credibly oppose female genital mutilation without opposing male genital mutilation as well. "

If male circumcision was the removal of the glans, then you would have a point. But it isnt, is it.

Chuck said...

"And male genital mutilation is big in America."

Thanks for the reminder. Yeah, you're a lying dumbass.

Next.

Eric Dondero said...

Removal of foreskin on a male increases the male sex drive. On a female, removal of her clitoris practically eliminates it.

It's mars and venus. You cannot get further apart.

KN@PPSTER said...

Hacking part of a person's genitals off is hacking part of a person's genitals off.

Hacking part of a person's genitals off because you say God told you to is hacking part of a person's genitals off because you say God told you to regardless of whether you call that God YHWH or Allah.

All the prevaricating in the world, including but not limited to pouring millions of dollars into fake "research" to justify it on "health" grounds won't change that fact.

You're either in favor of brutal, violent sexual assault on children, or you are against it.

FINCHNEST13 said...

Female circumcision not only results in a female not experiencing any pleasure in sex as the clitoris is removed, death is often the result due to the unsanitary conditions the circumcision is done under. The scar tissue that forms often causes scarring so severe that a woman is not able to give birth vaginally, or even have "normal" sexual relations. Her ability to urinate is also often hampered. This doesn't happen with male circumcision. Male circumcision became popular in the US because during the World Wars, more men were in sick bay because of infections they got due to not being able to keep their genitals clean while out to battle, than were in sick bay because of combat injuries.

As a nurse, I can attest to the problems uncircumcised men are known to have in old age as I worked for many years on the Navajo Reservation and Native American men aren't normally circumcised. As a man ages, not only is he likely to have sexual relations infrequently (more infrequently if widowed or divorced), they tend to infrequently masturbate. The result of this is usually atrophy of the foreskin, which can result in having to be circumcised. Circumcision in an adult male is VERY major surgery and recovery time is much longer than when the circumcision is done in infancy. When the foreskin atrophies, smegma still builds up and the sores that develop on the glans are painful. Forcible retraction of the foreskin is also extremely painful for the man.

A circumcised male still has pleasurable sensation in the glans and the penis, a circumcised female does not have pleasurable sensation in the genitals. Male circumcision rarely results in death for the male, female circumcision often results in death for the female. No physiological, scientific, logical, or rational comparison between the two can be made. Female circumcision results from the fear of men that "their" women may enjoy sex and end up having sex with someone other than their spouse -- male circumcision isn't the result of female selfishness or fears and the man isn't sexually destroyed if he is circumcised.

KN@PPSTER said...

FINCHNEST13,

Mengele had excuses for his mutilation fetishes too.

mitsukurina said...

"As a man ages, not only is he likely to have sexual relations infrequently (more infrequently if widowed or divorced), they tend to infrequently masturbate. The result of this is usually atrophy of the foreskin, which can result in having to be circumcised."

Bizarre. Adult circumcision is extremely rare and not at all a normal result of aging.