Dad Convicted for Circumcision on Daughter

This can spark a serious debate. I'll provide the article and link to begin.

Dad gets 10 years in first female circumcision trial in U.S.

LAWRENCEVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- An Ethiopian immigrant was convicted Wednesday of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in what was believed to be the first such criminal case in the United States.

Khalid Adem, 30, was found guilty of aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Prosecutors said he 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.

Adem, who had no criminal record, could have been sentenced to up to 40 years in prison. He held his face in his hands and wept loudly after the jury's verdict was read.

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."

Federal law specifically bans the practice of genital mutilation, but many states do not have a law addressing it. Georgia lawmakers, with the support of the girl's mother, passed an anti-mutilation law last year. But Adem was not tried under that law since it did not exist when his daughter was cut.

During the trial, Adem testified he never circumcised his daughter or asked anyone else to do so. He said he grew up in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and considers the practice more prevalent in rural areas.

www.cnn.com...

Now without a doubt this is wrong on many levels. I believe he should be punished by American law and his punishment does fit the crime. The argument could certainly be made for a stiff punishment, but we can work with what we have. The first thing that stands out to myself is that this man is an immigrant and comes from a different culture.

In some cultures, many women are circumcised. It is a horrific experience, but it preserves the sanctity of the woman. Well, thats how they see it. The worst case of these circumcisions are when the vagina itself is sewed closed. My education surrounding these rituals is vague at best, so to a member who is more informed feel free to correct me, but I believe this is for the husband. After marriage, it is an honor to break the seal. If the seal is missing, it is a serious insult to the man. I think that is correct.

So my question is, if this is a large part of the mans culture, would it be still a crime? We can say have a doctor perform the surgery, which would more than likely be rejected, but wouldn't it be an insult to have an outsider make contact?

I think without a doubt that American law is going to supersede any culture. But I am curious if other members would disagree. Is the man within his right to invoke sanctity on his daughter?

Few snips from the article that we should direct our attention to:

Federal law specifically bans the practice of genital mutilation, but many states do not have a law addressing it.
---
Adem, who cried throughout the trial and during his testimony, was asked what he thought of someone who believes in the practice. He replied: "The word I can say is 'mind in the gutter.' He is a moron."
--
Since 2001, the State Department estimates that up to 130 million women worldwide have undergone circumcision.
Knives, razors or even sharp stones are usually used, according to a 2001 department report. The tools are frequently not sterilized, and often, many girls are circumcised at the same ceremony, leading to infection.

It appears he is attempting to make it clear that he does not condone these mutilations. But if he is guilty of the crime, the only logical answer would be he does believe in it. What sort of perversion would be necessary to conduct this action if you did not consider it a part of your culture?

This very much is mutilation, and no mutilation should be a part of any society or cultcher.
Just because it has been done in history does not make it right, safe, or good.
I would shugest that those who condone it do not know what it does to the victem.

Sigh..when will they stop this ??


I hope the old man has 'cut his ears off to make his head easier to clean'.

Mummy did not notice...yeah right.


in Pace Always
resi:

[edit on 1-11-2006 by resistancia]

wow it is always weird to hear a weird and disturbing thing. it keeps me warm at night

Damn thats sick.


The dude needs a life behind bars and never ever to come out - he's a risk to any future daughters he would of ever had - and I hope he never ever has any contact with his daughter ever again.

race / colour /creed / ignorance /superstition is no reason why these poor girls should have to go through such a horrendouse experience - and where it happens in backwards countries it should be stamped out so hard their ears ring for decades after.

Sick - bet they don't do this to the boys..... damn poor kid.

The man deserved to be locked up, tradition or anything else be damned.

MUTILATING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FOR ANY REASON IS WRONG!

As an example, when my first daughter was born my wife wanted to get her ears pierced. I said NO! I explained to her that I believed that the person should be old enough to decide what they wanted to do with their own body. No baby should be subject to that pain. She agreed with me and we waited until both our daughters asked that their ears be pierced, and knew what they were asking for, before we allowed it.

I'm not going into the infamous belly button piercing episode that my now ex wife is yet to forgive me for, But my daughter was 16 when that happened and we both still laugh over it, though my ex doesn't.

When someone is old enough to know of what they are doing, the pain it will entail and the risk involved, they can do whatever they want.

To inflict piercing or any other mutilation on a child should be punished severly.

I don't care where the parents are from or the culture they grew up in.

This is just my opinion of course.

Well, this makes me ill....

I hope this sick, twisted man has a full 10 years with his new uncircumcised lover Bubba.

And I certainly don't believe that the mother had no idea.

Neither do I. This is truly sick and disgusting. Tradition has no merit in situations such as this. The mutilation of another human being (much less your own daughter!!) should never be tolerated for any reason. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around a father doing something like this to their own child. It blows me away. God willing this man will get EVERYTHING that he deserves in prison.

If female circumcision if veiwed as an act of horrific mutilation, why can't the same be said of removing the foeskin of young boys?

It's an act just as barbaric, and upheld as 'cultural' but is accepted in the eyes of the law

Originally posted by timski
If female circumcision if veiwed as an act of horrific mutilation, why can't the same be said of removing the foeskin of young boys?

It's an act just as barbaric, and upheld as 'cultural' but is accepted in the eyes of the law

What is wrong with you ? omg.


Castration is a better comparison, and thats a good punishment, Castrate him and send him back to his sandcastle.

Originally posted by timski
If female circumcision if veiwed as an act of horrific mutilation, why can't the same be said of removing the foeskin of young boys?

It's an act just as barbaric, and upheld as 'cultural' but is accepted in the eyes of the law

i believe the argument can be made that circumcision of males does not hinder sensation received from sexual activity, or ability for the penis to function, as does the 'circumcision' of females.
i'll put it this way: male circumcision can be seen as cutting off a hangnail. female circumcision can be seen as cutting off the whole finger...
though i'll admit, i don't know much about the practice itself, so my thinking may be kinda wayward.

No you are fairly accurate in your assesment of this. It is no where near the same thing in males as it is in females. The circumcision of males is viewed by some as a matter of hygeine just as much as it is a tradition in some places. The castration of females is in no way permissable. It is disgusting and should in no way be tolerated.

Originally posted by timski
It's an act just as barbaric, and upheld as 'cultural' but is accepted in the eyes of the law

Yeah I too would have to disagree. Castration of a male might be a better comparison to a female circumcision.

The different methods of female circumcision is scary. The worst of which would probably be the stitching of the vaginal canal. The closure is a form of sanctity that secures the virginity of a woman for her husband. Would we be comfortable in assuming that a man started this ritual?

Seems unfair for many women that they are a statistic in this ritual. They have no input or opinion on the matter, it is something they just have to endure.

I agree with wupy's post. It would be wrong to make the decision for anyone. Allow the individual to mature, and they can make their own decision. Nobody has any right over my body, so to make a decision for me at a young age would be unnecessary.

Female circumcision in the UK has been banned for many years, and recently there have been stories saying that African communities have been organising visits by African elders in order to circumcise their daughters.

It is a barbaric crime, and something that belongs in the start of the stone age, just because it is a cultural issue, it does not mean that it should become a 'get out clause' for justice being served.

We can say have a doctor perform the surgery, which would more than likely be rejected, but wouldn't it be an insult to have an outsider make contact?

THe process itself is an insult. REmoving a woman's clitoris is the equivalent of removing a man's penis. No culture does that.
The closest anyone comes to that is sub-incision, this is practiced amoung some aboriginal australian cults, the men go out away from the women, the young boys have their penises grabbed, pulled, and then a pointed stick is used to peice the bottom of the base, then dragged along the base of the penis, splitting it open. The boys are now "men". Sometimes they repeat the ritual.

Some anthropologists have theorized that circumcision and sub-incision are actually attempts by men to reproduce the changes in a woman's anatomy that occur, in association with the profoundly moving "mystery of birth". Women have 'power' in that they are able to create new humans, this is something normally consider a power of a god, and also in association with the generation is the sex act, during which the hymen of the woman is torn, and certainly, after giving birth, completely obliterated, a profound change in the anatomy as a result of a highly powerful and mystical act, giving birth, a mark/consequence of mystical power and connection.
So the men have done these things to change their anatomy too, to cull some of that mystical union.
THen, ironically, its thought that female circumcision is a repetition of all that, the men are circumcised, so they decide that the women must also go through this process.


Unfortunately, female genital mutilation is simply not analagous to male circumscision, the removal of the clitoral hood, perhaps, would be acceptable, as its produced from similar progeny tissue.

But the excision of the clitoris, rending off of the labia, stitching whats left almost shut?

Absolute brutality. There is no men's group anywhere that does the equivalent, removal of the penis, flaying of the scrotum (again, the same primordial tissues as the labia), and then this ridiculous stiching business.

Absolute barbarism. Doesn't matter that people choose to do it, keep it illegal.

This calls to mind a story, possibly apochrypal, of a britishman in colonial india. An indian man is telling him that, suttee, wherein the wife of a deceased man throws herself, and is even often thrown onto, alive, her husband's funeral pyre, is a tradition of great import to the hindus, that their cultural values it greatly. To which the britisher replies something like 'and stopping this kind of action is of great cultural import and value to us'.

So, not mutliating women and brainwashing them into thinking its ok, its of great cultural and moral importance to us.

RedGolem
This very much is mutilation, and no mutilation should be a part of any society or cultcher.

Mutilation is a common practice in all cultures, especially in the US, what does anyone think having a girl's ear's peirced is all about? Its mutilation, just very low grade.
Mutilation is acceptable, its taht this is enforced mutliation, and brainwashed mutilation, that is the problem.

We don't, for example, have a problem with men having their genitals removed bceause they want to be women. Its the issue of choice and force that is radically different here.

resistanca
Mummy did not notice...yeah right.

I rolled my eyes when I read that too. This is a two year old, and somehow I suspect that the mother is the one allways dealing with the kid, since this is clearly a 'traditional family', where that's 'women's work'.

mrwuppy
To inflict piercing or any other mutilation on a child should be punished severly.

I think that the egregious thing here is that its the removal of organs, not 'mere mutliation'. Circumcision is the cultural norm in the US, and lots of parents have their infants get ear peircings. Heck, we even glue peices of metal to kid's teeth, then crank wires tight between them to force their teeth into a prefered position. Not quite mutliation, but its body modification that we see as going from what is the natural form to something 'asthetically prefered'.

With all due respect to freedom of religion you just don't go around messing with other peoples junk, daughter or no, religious practice or no.

I was circumsized as a child and south park is right by the way...but I digress. As mentioned before circumcision was and is done mainly for health reasons.

Castration is a pretty close comparison and lets be completely honest here if the religious practice was to snip off the head of the mans penis there'd be a lot of atheists in ethiopia.

Coming to america does not give you the freedom to mutilate your child for religious reasons. We tolerate a lot but not everything.

FOr me this is vile for a number of reasons. The most of course being that this is done to a lot of girls with absolutely no choice and that it is done for control purposes couched in religion. The fact that the girl was two only makes it more vile.

You know not everything written in scripture is good.

Some judaic and christrian law is barbaric and not practiced any longer. Yes I'm sure there are some crazy sects out there but mains stream judao/christrian law does not practice the more barbaric old testament tennets.

As people are aware even the vatican changes and adapts the laws of catholicism to meet the demand of the times and well politics too.

The mutilations of anyone angaist their will is wrong, wether couched in religion or not...and again, you just don't snip off bits of somebodies yam, that's not cool.

Now a maori who comes of age getting their body tattoo, which by the way looks incredibly painful, I'm fine with that as it's purely by choice and holds great spiritual signifigance for the culture.

But if they started to chissel tattoo ink into a three year old, I'd have a big problem with that...they don't by the way and never would but just using it as an example.

Spiderj

What the hell is wrong with people? ......You know what? I had better not comment further. It'll probably get me banned.

Yeah, lets not get anyone in trouble here. If you find yourself getting too heated, take a deep breath.

Nygdan, your knowledge on cultures and rituals seems to be second to none on this site. I'm interested if your familiar with an African culture that sew the vagina of young women?

It was a case study I read last year for a university course I was taking. It talked about how it was an insult to the male if the woman was not completely closed. The women rarely objected to the ritual, as it was a form of sanctity, an honor to themselves.

It was some twisted stuff. We've locked up people for a lot less and this tribe condoned their actions. Hell, anyone who spoke against it was banished. A woman had no choice in the matter. Her prearranged marriages were a necessity for her survival, and the man would not accept her without the sanctity/

When I read this article, that case study immediately came to mind. I've come up short in finding a link to the tribe but hopefully I'll come across the book itself.

well it looks like this guy is going to learn about some american rituals the hard way. Like what happens in american prisons to child molesters, and murderers of little kids. i hope this guy gets a cell with and agressive 350 pound guy named bubba who's got a 10inch friend and knows what to do with it. You know the kind that don't take no for an answer. I hope they have deaf wardens at wherever they send this dispicable person. He's got to know what he's doing is wrong when he's causing a little bound up girl to shriek in absolute unimaginable pain. I hope he learns the phrase "No! No! Leroy I'm bilingual not bisexuall!!! There's a difference!!!" real quick cause he's gunna need it. And I hope that bubba educates this guy to learn the Fist can also be a verb.

While I would find this practice barbaric, it is still practiced in many countries in SA. Sudan is one of them. There are organizations that are beginning to take root and end this practice but I guess its been a tradition for a long time and there is lots of people not open to any such protest. If this man was intelligent and he wanted to follow his tradition he should have done it in his own country where its legal to do and is performed by women who are trained to do it. He put his daughters life in jeopardy by doing this himself unless he's a doctor of some sort. As far as the wife not knowing, I agree that its BS that the mother was not aware that the daughter was circumsized. She too probably is and expected her daughter to be as well.

You can't really compare a clitoris to castration. A woman can still procreate with or without a clitoris wheras a man would no longer be able to procreate if his scrotum was severed.