Fall 1996 Human Rights Magazine

By Robin M. Maher

The Pulitzer-prize winning photograph shows a young woman from Kenya, her back to the camera, head tilted down, legs bent at the knees. She is examining herself after undergoing a procedure known as female genital mutilation (FGM), in which her genitals were mutilated and removed. It is a modern day chastity belt which will leave this young woman with mental scars and physical pain for the rest of her life. At this moment of discovery, we are spared from seeing her face as she realizes for the first time what has happened to her. We are left to imagine her expression and the impact this procedure will have on her young life.

Confronted with such imagery, it is through 20th century eyes and sensibilities that we in the United States view the practice of FGM, a custom with cultural and religious significance thousands of years old. FGM is practiced in over 40 countries, including the United States, and has affected an estimated 80 to 120 million girls and women world-wide. Although widely practiced, public discussion of the subject by practicing members of the culture was largely taboo until recently, when women seeking to save themselves or their daughters fled their native lands to seek asylum and found themselves in the media spotlight. No longer an exercise in cultural relativism, lawyers, judges and medical professionals in the US were suddenly confronted with the reality of FGM in the personhood of young women like Fauziya Kasinga.

The Case of Fauziya Kasinga
Fauziya Kasinga was 17 and living in her native country of Togo when she was forced into a polygamous marriage with an older man. Although her family had protected her from FGM when she was younger, circumstances following her father's death found her confined to a storage room shortly after her marriage in 1994, waiting for a circumciser to arrive. Somehow managing to escape, Kasinga fled to the United States to seek political asylum. Upon her arrival in December, 1994, she was promptly incarcerated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to await extradition. And there she remained, for 16 months, enduring repeated strip searches and a tear gassing during a June 1995 riot over living conditions at the correctional facility where she was held. During this time, lawyers and advocates engaged in a fierce debate over the legitimacy of her claim as a refugee fleeing persecution under the Refugee Act.

At first poorly represented, Kasinga and her story of forced mutilation were pronounced "not credible" by an immigration judge in Philadelphia, and her claim denied. Fortunately, Kasinga's plight drew the attention of powerful advocates like U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, and women's human rights groups like Equality Now, who publicized her case, mobilized support and arranged for new legal representation. The international outrage which followed ultimately forced the INS to release her from detention while her appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeal was pending.

In its decision, the INS cautiously stated that FGM "under certain circumstances . . . may form the basis for asylum." On June 13, 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and granted Kasinga asylum. In its 11 to 1 decision, the Board stated that Kasinga had established a well-founded fear of persecution and noted that "most African women can expect little governmental protection from FGM." These and other recent decisions by INS judges have human rights advocates hopeful that FGM will be recognized as a legitimate form of persecution for other women seeking political asylum.

Torture Cloaked in Tradition
The term "female genital mutilation" generally describes three different forms of genital mutilation. The most common form is female circumcision, in which the clitoris is partially or completely cut away, often with razor blades or broken glass, and rarely with anesthesia. The most extreme form of FGM is infibulation, in which the entire genital area and outer tissues are cut away. The external sides of the vagina are then sewn together using catgut or thorns, leaving only a tiny opening for the passage of urine and for menstruation.

The procedure, often by female family members, is performed in non-sterile conditions, and frequently results in serious and sometimes fatal infections. In some areas in West Africa, dirt, ashes or pulverized animal feces are thrown into the wound to stop the bleeding, which contributes to the opportunity for infection, shock, and uncontrolled hemorrhaging. Following the procedure, the girl's legs are bound together for as long as 40 days, during which time, (if she survives), her wound heals and scars.

The long term effects of this procedure include complications and pain with menstruation, urination, intercourse and childbirth. It is no coincidence that the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world are recorded in regions where FGM is practiced. The scarring and complications associated with FGM frequently results in delayed and obstructed labor, tearing and hemorrhaging. Unassisted childbirth is impossible following infibulation; many women and infants die during childbirth as a consequence of the procedure.

The stark details of the procedure are horrifying. Even stated simply, as they are here, without the anecdotal descriptions of the pain and suffering these women experience during and following this procedure, it is an appalling description. It is difficult, therefore, to imagine why a mother would choose to subject her daughter to such a painful ritual, particularly after having undergone the procedure herself.

Religion is one motivation, primarily among Muslim populations. These groups have the mistaken belief that their religion demands the practice; in fact, religious scholars have confirmed that there is no mention of FGM in the Koran. That does not stop many religious and secular leaders from claiming that it does.

A notable example is the Sheikh of Al-Azhar (a prominent Islamic university in Egypt), who publicly proclaimed recently that FGM had a place in the jurisprudence of Islam.Under pressure from leaders like the Sheikh, the Egyptian Ministry of Health issued a decree in 1994 which permitted hospitals in Egypt to perform the procedure for the equivalent of three dollars. Human rights organizations and Egyptian activists quickly organized a strong response to the decree, which essentially medicalized and legitimatized the practice. The Minister ultimately revoked the directive a year later. But the controversy confirmed the strong presence of FGM in Islamic communities.

Education is another explanation of FGM's long tradition. Research has demonstrated a direct correlation between the education of women and a decline of the practice. This may be because educated women see alternatives to the traditional roles of wife and mother, thus diminishing the importance of preserving a woman's status as a marriageable virgin. Educated women are also more likely to recognize the damaging physical and mental health aspects of the practice.

But religious belief and poor education are only partial explanations. A more complete answer comes with understanding a core belief many communities have about women. This belief holds that women are fundamentally sexual creatures and naturally promiscuous; thus the purpose of FGM is to prevent women from succumbing to these impulses and to protect them against the sexual aggressions of others.

Infibulation is the ultimate expression of this purpose, forcing a new husband to cut his wife open before physical consummation of the marriage is possible. In purely economic terms, the practice also ensures a virgin bride who will bring a high price to the family at the time of her marriage

Religions may tacitly or explicitly re-enforce this belief about women. Those who have not undergone the procedure are viewed in some societies as "unclean" and promiscuous, and may be barred from entering certain worship areas. These women will be social outcasts--women that no man would take as a wife.

It is with this understanding that a mother's motivation to inflict the procedure on her daughters becomes apparent. For women whose entire worth lies in their recognition as "mother" and "wife," as is the case in many societies where FGM is practiced, marrying is a simple matter of survival. Having a daughter who is marriageable--one who has undergone FGM--is therefore absolutely essential for her future and that of her children. Unfortunately, these social judgments and economic realities return mothers to circumcisers with their young daughters in hand.

The Story of Waris Dirie
Waris Dirie was born in Somalia and was infibulated at the age of five. Even today, more than 20 years later, discussing the pain and horror of the procedure still makes her choke with emotion. "I am very angry," she says. "It took me a long time to deal with [FGM]. It's not an easy thing. God gave me the strength to survive, but I will not forget until I die."

Dirie's parents arranged for her to undergo FGM, continuing a tradition in which her mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother had taken part. "I didn't know anyone who hadn't had it done," she says, adding that there would have been only "shame" for women who didn't have the procedure. "When I was young, I couldn't wait," she says. "Afterward, you are automatically treated like a woman. I didn't want to be a little girl anymore. I wanted to be a big girl. I kept telling my parents, I want to be next."

Dirie survived the procedure; her younger sister did not. Two cousins also died of complications from FGM. Dirie says their deaths were not unusual. "These women [circumcisers] go door to door, with a filthy razor. They have no training; they don't know what they are doing." As a consequence, infection, hemorrhaging and death were common.

Dirie left Africa when she was 14, making her way to London and the United States where she became a successful model. But she continued to struggle with what had happened to her as a child in Somalia. "One day I decided enough was enough." says Dirie. "I didn't want another woman to ever go through this." Her conviction prompted her speak to publicly about her experience for the first time. Dirie says her story shocked everyone she knew.

"People looked at me and couldn't believe it," she says. They kept saying, "All this time and we didn't know." She received thousands of letters of support after her story was published. But she was also criticized by Muslim women who were outraged that she would talk publicly about their tradition. "They looked down on me, and said, How dare you. This is your culture, your tradition."

But Dirie says this is what gives her license to talk about what is happening to her countrywomen. "This is my experience, my country that I'm talking about," she says. "It has to stop."

Western Imperialism and Eradication Efforts
Although there is little question whether FGM is a human rights issue, there is much debate over how to address and eradicate the practice. Given the significant issues of societal values, tradition and religion involved, attempts toward eradication are often controversial. What right, after all, does one society have to pass judgment on another's traditions?

For many feminist and human rights groups, the answer lies in a fundamental understanding of the practice itself. Like the ancient Chinese practice of repeatedly breaking and binding women's feet, for them, the brutality of FGM speaks louder than any anthropologist's argument.

Human rights law echoes this sentiment. The theory of universalism holds that there are human rights so fundamental to every human being that they transcend all societal, political and religious constraints. Various human rights instruments have codified this theory. Among them is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the equal and inalienable right to liberty, dignity and the security of the person. FGM has been identified by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and other international human rights organizations as violative of these fundamental human rights and harmful to the health and well-being of women.

FGM, like most traditions, can be described as a society's expression of its beliefs and values, borne of experiences no outside commentator can fully appreciate. But an acknowledgment of the societal context does not invalidate the criticism. It does affect the manner in which eradication may be accomplished, however. To this end, it has been demonstrated that the most effective approach is to work closely with the women in the communities in which FGM is practiced.

Although previously fearful that publicity only sensationalized the practice, more women are now willing to speak publicly about their own experiences with FGM. These testimonials have mobilized support for eradication in a manner unprecedented in previous years.

Equality Now, which has championed this cause, has partnered with these women to provide them with financial and emotional support, opportunities for education, and grass-roots support for legislation outlawing FGM. This approach, according to Equality Now's executive director Surita Sandosham, is the main reason her organization has been able to successfully influence the outcome in cases like Fauziya Kasinga's.

Legal Response in the United States
No reliable statistics have been compiled, but there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that FGM is being practiced in immigrant communities throughout the U.S. A number of physicians have reportedly been asked by immigrants to perform the procedure on their daughters; in all cases, the physician has refused to do so.

However, it is believed by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) that a few U.S physicians do perform the procedure, albeit with the disapproval of their colleagues. There are also reports that women have asked physicians to reinfibulate them following childbirth, citing concerns about retribution from their family or husband if it is not done.

This evidence, together with the number of women and children showing up at US hospitals with complications from the procedure, has led the ACOG, the American Medical Association, and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists to resoundingly condemn the practice. Unfortunately, and despite this opposition, there is no way to stop parents from performing FGM in the privacy of their own homes.

Mimi Ramsey, a woman now living in San Francisco, immigrated from her native Ethiopia, where her mother arranged for her and her best friend to undergo FGM. Her best friend bled to death during the procedure, and Ramsey herself suffers daily from its long-term effects. She has publicly offered her painful testimony in support of eradication efforts and is a leading advocate in the movement to abolish the practice worldwide.

One of Ramsey's greatest contributions is her work with immigrant communities in the U.S. She has obtained many first-hand reports that FGM is thriving in American cities like Washington D.C, New York, and San Francisco, where there are large communities of African immigrants. Her conversations with these mothers and fathers about FGM reveal the long-held biases about women. She also hears their fear--that their daughters will grow up wild and immodest, that they will be "man-crazy" and sexual--like the American women shown on television.

So convinced are they that this will be their daughter's future without FGM that many parents have not hesitated to perform the procedure on their own children. Others have arranged for their child to be travel abroad and undergo the procedure. The girls are told that the procedure is a rite of puberty; that they will be women afterward, and respected members of their community upon their return. They are told that their genitalia is "bad," and that it will grow and grow until it drags between their legs unless it is cut off. Few of these young girls completely understand what will happen during the procedure, but they become persuaded that it is necessary; almost none understand that all women do not undergo FGM.

On occasion, Ramsey has been able to successfully intervene and convince parents that FGM is a painful and unnecessary procedure. But the fear and conviction is deeply held.

"You don't change a culture overnight," explains Sandosham of Equality Now. "You bring your culture closer to you because you are in a strange country. That is how you maintain your identity. Who you are does not change because you leave your country. You want your daughter to marry within your community, and you know she has no status in the community unless she is mutilated, so you make sure that she is."

Waris Dirie confirms reports that FGM is being practiced in immigrant communities in the U.S. "I know it is happening here, " she says emphatically. "They think it is for the women, so they won't go wild and sleep around, but it is really for the men, so they will have power over [women]."

In response to these reports, U.S Rep.Patricia Schroeder has introduced federal legislation to criminalize the procedure in the United States. The bill also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to collect data on the incidence of FGM in the U.S., to conduct education and outreach efforts to communities that traditionally practice FGM, and provide recommendations to medical schools for treatment of women who have been affected.

Although a previous bill failed to pass, a second bill introduced in this Congress was more successful. The Health and Human Services provisions have become law, and the criminalization provision is part of the Senate immigration bill, which has yet to be reconciled with the House immigration bill. This provision also contains an amendment introduced by Rep. Schroeder to notify immigrants and visitors upon entry to the U.S. of the legal and health consequences of FGM.

A number of states have also passed legislation to criminalize FGM. They include Minnesota, North Dakota, Tennessee and Delaware. Other states are considering similar measures, with varying degrees of success. When State Rep. Ellen Kellner introduced a bill to make FGM a crime in her state of Rhode Island, Rep. Charles Knowles, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, accused her of "trivializing the process by submitting a meaningless, pointless piece of legislation." He also joked that the bill number, House Bill 7769, was "fitting, considering the subject." When his remarks were published in the local newspaper, Knowles was forced to apologize, and the bill later passed. At press time, the bill was awaiting the governor's signature to become law.

Although Knowles' response was exceptional, an unenthusiastic reaction to state legislation on FGM has not been unusual. Proposed legislation in five other states recently failed to become law. There have also been some unexpected consequences to successful legislation efforts. In 1995, North Dakota passed a law making it a felony to alter the genitals of a female minor child. In June, 1996, a lawsuit was filed against the state by a woman on behalf of her male child who was circumcised shortly after birth. The lawsuit alleges that the law is unconstitutional in that it violates the rights of male children who are routinely circumcised after birth.

North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp says that North Dakota passed its Female Genital Mutilation Law to join the international voices in opposition to FGM. She is unperturbed by the lawsuit, and says that there are issues of standing and substance the state will assert in its motion to dismiss. "Cultural issues aside, in our state, we're not going to allow [FGM]," Heitkamp says firmly, and this lawsuit will not derail that intent. Motions are scheduled to be heard this fall.

Conclusion
It is one thing to pass a law, but secular disapproval means nothing to individuals who find moral and religious justification for what they do. They believe FGM "saves and protects" women. Instead, it maintains the balance of power in favor of unmutilated men. What are fines and penalities compared to this? Education, awareness and the testimonials of courageous women like Fauziya Kasinga, Mimi Ramsey and Waris Dirie may ultimately shift this balance. But this tradition has the conviction of a thousand years. Let us hope that it is not a thousand more before the last woman is mutilated.

Robin M. Maher is counsel to Norwest Corporation in Minneapolis, where she practices employment law. She is a volunteer attorney for Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, and has worked on several human rights projects, including political asylum representation, death penalty defense and women's human rights projects.

As published in Human Rights, Fall 1996, Vol. 23, No. 4, p.12-15.