Advertisement

What Constitutes Mutilation? A Concern With Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Laws in Australia and the Question of Natural Function

  • Juliet B. RogersEmail author
Sociocultural Issues and Epidemiology (J Abdulcadir and C Johnson-Agbakwu, Section Editors)
  • 4 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Sociocultural Issues and Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In 2019, the highest court in Australia is deliberating on the question of what constitutes mutilation. This paper examines the arguments in the first case prosecuted using Female Genital Mutilation law in Australia and considers how the arguments have drawn on ideas of function and desire of women’s genitals as well as of women themselves. The brief writings on this case and on FGM law in Australia are discussed, particularly the work of Kennedy, Sullivan, Seuffert and Iribanes, and Gans.

Recent Findings

The paper finds that the ideas of genital function in the deliberations and judgments of this case rely on a problematic idea of the natural function of a woman and a presumption of the harm of female genital mutilation irrespective of alternative research, and rely on a singular document published in Australia in 1994 that did not include any engagement or opinions of people from the communities who practice circumcision or genital cutting in Australia.

Summary

The partial information relied on in Australian law about the practices of female genital cutting and the immediate presumption of harm in respect to any form of the practices means that future research and indeed legal opinion already presume that the practices are a mutilation.

Keywords

Female genital cutting Vaziri and Magennis Australian law Female Genital Mutilation Act NSW Clitoral function 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks are due to Sahar Ghumkhor and John Sutton for comments and assistance with this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Hage G. White nation: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Australia: Pluto Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reynolds H. Frontier. Ringwood: Penguin Books; 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reynolds H. Aboriginal sovereignty: three nations, one Australia? Allen and Unwin: Sydney; 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfe P. Traces of history: elementary structures of race. New York: Verso; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnsdotter S, Mestre i Mestre RM. ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ in Europe: public discourse versus empirical evidence. International Journal of Law, Crime Justice 2017;51: 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowse T. After Mabo: interpreting indigenous traditions. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press; 1993. p. 129.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Family Law Council. Female genital mutilation: a discussion paper. Canberra: Commonwealth Publishing House; 1994a.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Family Law Council. Female genital mutilation: a report to the Attorney-General. Canberra: Commonwealth Publishing House; 1994b.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seth S. Liberalism and the politics of (multi)culture: or, plurality is not difference. Postcolonial Stud. 2001;4(1):65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers J. Managing cultural diversity in Australia. Legislating female circumcision, legislating communities. In: Hernland Y, Shell-Duncan B, editors. Transcultural cultural bodies: female genital cutting in global context. London and New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers J. 2013 Law’s cut on the body of human rights: female circumcision, torture and sacred flesh. London: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Model Criminal Code Division 9—Female Genital Mutilation. 1998. Review of Australia’s Female Genital Mutilation legal framework: final report. Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department. March 2013.p.3–14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iribane M, Seuffert N. Imagined legal subjects and the regulation of female genital surgery. Aust Fem Law J. 2018;44(2):175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 1221; R v Vaziri . The appeal decision is A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers J. The first case addressing female genital multination in Australia: where is the harm? Alternat Law J. 2016;41(4):235–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Act (No. 58 of 1994) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to prohibit female genital mutilation, 22 September 1994. Crimes Amendment (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2014 No 15 [my emphasis]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 156Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R v Vaziri [25] (my emphasis)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grosz E. Volatile bodies: towards a corporeal feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Butler J. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirby V. On the cutting edge: feminism and clitoridectomy. Aust Fem Stud. 1987;5(2):35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Douzinas C. The end of human rights: critical legal thought at the turn of the century. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manderson L. Local rites and body politics: tensions between cultural diversity and human rights. Int Fem J Polit. 2004;6(2):285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foucault M. The history of sexuality: use of pleasure: Vintage Books; 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahmadu F. Aint I a woman?: challenging sexual dysfunction in circumcised women. In: Hernlund Y, Shell-Duncan B, editors. Transcultural bodies: female genital cutting in global context. London and New Brunswick: Rutgers; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mustafa R. The multiple effects of female genital mutilation. Workshop; University of Melbourne; 2018.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boddy J. Violence embodied? Circumcision, fender politics, and cultural aesthetics. In: Emerson Dobash E, Dobash R, editors. Rethinking violence against women. California: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dopico M. Infibulation and the orgasm puzzle: sexual experiences of infibulated Eritrean women in rural Eritrea and Melbourne Australia. In: Hernlund Y, Shell-Duncan B, editors. Transcultural bodies: female genital cutting in global context. London and New Brunswick: Rutgers; 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kennedy A. Mutilation and beautification. Aust Feminist Stud. 2009;24(60):211–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sullivan N. Transmotechnics and the matter of genital modifications. Aust Feminist Stud. 2009;24(60):275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers J. I love you...I mutilate you: the capture of flesh and the word in ‘female genital mutilation’ law. Analysis. 2009;15:37–53.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gans J. Modern criminal law of Australia. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cosmopolitan Magazine. Like a virgin: intimate plastic surgery. 1994. p. 18.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johansen REB. Pain as a counterpoint to culture: towards an analysis of the experience of pain in infibulation among African immigrants in Norway. Med Anthropol Q. 2002;16(3):312–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schultz JH, Lien IL. Cultural protection against traumatic stress: traditional support of children exposed to the ritual of female genital cutting. Int J Women’s Health. 2014;6:207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations