An analysis of the implementation of laws with regard to female genital mutilation in Europe

This paper presents results of a survey on legislation regarding female genital mutilation in 15 European member states, as well as the results of a comparative analysis of the implementation of these laws in Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The research showed that although both criminal laws and child protection laws are implemented a number of difficulties with the implementation of these laws remain. The article suggests that efforts should primarily focus on child protection measures, but also on developing implementation strategies for criminal laws, and concludes with suggestions to overcome the obstructing factors to implement laws applicable to FGM in Europe. Introduction The terms most widely used are “female genital mutilation” (FGM) and “female circumcision.” A wide range of stakeholders has used “female genital mutilation” because they believe it acknowledges the damage caused by the practice. The term FGM Crime Law Soc Change (2007) 47:1–31 DOI 10.1007/s10611-007-9055-7 DO9055; No of Pages E. Leye (*) : J. Deblonde :M. Temmerman International Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185 P3, Ghent, Oost-Vlaanderen 9000, Belgium e-mail: els.leye@ugent.be J. García-Añón Human Rights Institute of the University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain S. Johnsdotter Department of Sociology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden A. Kwateng-Kluvitse Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development (FORWARD), London, UK L. Weil-Curiel Commision pour l’Abolition des Mutilations Sexuelles (CAMS), Paris, France has been “a very effective advocacy and policy tool and has been used in several United Nations (UN) conference documents” [17]. Female circumcision and any other local terminology is often used by fieldworkers and researchers, as it is believed to be less offensive and judgmental towards practicing communities, than the term female genital mutilation. Opposition to this term focuses on the similarities it evokes with male circumcision, although the cutting with male circumcision is by far not as evasive as with female circumcision. Recently “female genital mutilation/cutting” or even “female genital cutting” is emerging in publications and there is a tendency to use these terms in public discourse and at political level, once again because it is believed to be more neutral than “female genital mutilation.” At a UN consultation meeting on the new Joint Statement on Female Genital Mutilation (Geneva, 4–5 October 2006), the draft of the new joint statement discussed – amongst others – the proposed switch to FGM/C. The meeting did not came up with a decisive conclusion to change the terminology, and discussion is ongoing between UN agencies, researchers and activists. Until further notice, the official terminology used by WHO is still female genital mutilation. In accordance with the terminology used in the first joint statement of WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Development Fund (UNFPA), the term “female genital mutilation” is used throughout this thesis [39]. The World Health Organisation defines female genital mutilation (FGM) as all procedures involving partial or complete removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs, whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reasons [40]. These procedures are classified into four types ranging from pricking, piercing, stretching or incision of the clitoris and/or labia (Type IV), to the excision of the prepuce and clitoris (Type I), excision of clitoris and part or all of the labia minora (Type II) and to the stitching/ narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation or Type III) [40]. WHO is currently reviewing this classification, to include a Type V: the symbolic practices that involve the nicking or pricking of the clitoris to release little drops of blood [33]. FGM affects between 100–140 million women and girls worldwide [40] and it is estimated that more than 3 million girls a year are at risk of mutilation [33]. Even though primarily practiced in 28 African countries, ranging from parts of central, eastern and western Africa to the Horn of Africa, international migration has extended the practice outside the African continent, so that it has become a worldwide concern [28]. Female genital mutilation is predominant among Muslims, but also occurs among Christians (Coptic, Catholic and Protestant), animist and Jews (the Falashas in Ethiopia) [9]. However, the majority of Muslims worldwide, this is 80%, do not practice FGM [25]. Among different ethnic groups in Africa, there is a persistent belief that female genital mutilation is an Islamic rule. Until recently, there was an ongoing discussion between advocates and opponents of FGM if the practice was recommended in the Koran or not. At present, there a general understanding that FGM is not recommended in any religious text. The persistence of the practice, especially among Muslim women is partly due to the fact that many women do not have access to religious texts or because they are illiterate, and partly because a lot of religious leaders do not openly oppose FGM. Because these religious leaders are highly respected in communities and have considerable influence, they are one of the target groups for prevention of FGM. Both in Africa and Europe, the criminalisation of FGM is considered to be and is used as one of the mechanisms that could strengthen the global fight against FGM. In Europe, legal provisions pertaining to FGM are found in a variety of domains, including criminal laws and child protection laws. 2 E. Leye, et al.