What Constitutes Mutilation? A Concern With Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Laws in Australia and the Question of Natural Function
- 4 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsFemale genital cutting Vaziri and Magennis Australian law Female Genital Mutilation Act NSW Clitoral function
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.
- 1.Hage G. White nation: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Australia: Pluto Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 2.Reynolds H. Frontier. Ringwood: Penguin Books; 1987.Google Scholar
- 3.Reynolds H. Aboriginal sovereignty: three nations, one Australia? Allen and Unwin: Sydney; 1996.Google Scholar
- 4.Wolfe P. Traces of history: elementary structures of race. New York: Verso; 2014.Google Scholar
- 6.Rowse T. After Mabo: interpreting indigenous traditions. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press; 1993. p. 129.Google Scholar
- 7.Family Law Council. Female genital mutilation: a discussion paper. Canberra: Commonwealth Publishing House; 1994a.Google Scholar
- 8.Family Law Council. Female genital mutilation: a report to the Attorney-General. Canberra: Commonwealth Publishing House; 1994b.Google Scholar
- 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.Rogers J. 2013 Law’s cut on the body of human rights: female circumcision, torture and sacred flesh. London: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
- 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
- 14.R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 2)  NSWSC 1221; R v Vaziri . The appeal decision is A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R  NSWCCA 174.Google Scholar
- 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.R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 2)  NSWSC 156Google Scholar
- 18.R v Vaziri  (my emphasis)Google Scholar
- 19.Grosz E. Volatile bodies: towards a corporeal feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- 20.Butler J. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge; 1993.Google Scholar
- 22.Douzinas C. The end of human rights: critical legal thought at the turn of the century. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2000.Google Scholar
- 24.A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R  NSWCCAGoogle Scholar
- 25.Foucault M. The history of sexuality: use of pleasure: Vintage Books; 1990.Google Scholar
- 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.Mustafa R. The multiple effects of female genital mutilation. Workshop; University of Melbourne; 2018.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 34.Cosmopolitan Magazine. Like a virgin: intimate plastic surgery. 1994. p. 18.Google Scholar