If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News7 mins ago
A Chance To Secure Multiple Convictions For The Crime Of Fgm?
If these girls were being taken to Africa in order to undergo FGM will their 'carers' be planning to bring them back to the UK? If so, could they be put on a watch list so that when they return they could be invited to explain, under caution, their actions.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The story beneath does not really live up to the sensationalist headline.
Someone saw a group of Muslim women on a flight and reported them for possible FGM. No real evidence that any FGM is to happened.
The police will have return flight details so we will have to wait until then.
So it is premature to talk of convictions and sentences before we know if any crime has taken place.
Someone saw a group of Muslim women on a flight and reported them for possible FGM. No real evidence that any FGM is to happened.
The police will have return flight details so we will have to wait until then.
So it is premature to talk of convictions and sentences before we know if any crime has taken place.
FTAO AOG
//
A new Section 3A offence of failing to protect a girl under the age of 16 from risk of FGM is introduced into the 2003 Act. A person is liable for the offence if they are responsible for a girl at the time when an offence is committed against her and when FGM has actually occurred.
The term "responsible" covers two classes of person: first, a person who has 'parental responsibility' for the girl and has 'frequent contact' with her, and, second, any adult who has assumed responsibility for caring for the girl in the manner of a parent, for example, grandparents who might be caring for the girl during the school holidays.
There are two possible defences: the first is that the defendant did not think that there was a significant risk of the girl being subjected to FGM and could not reasonably have been expected to be aware that there was any such risk. The second defence is that the defendant took reasonable steps to protect the girl from being the victim of FGM. The defendant will have to adduce sufficient evidence for the matter to be considered by the jury; it would then be for the prosecution to demonstrate to the criminal standard of proof, namely beyond reasonable doubt, that the defence had not been made out. We envisage that this provision may lead to more difficult prosecutions given the wide parameters of the two defences. //
//
A new Section 3A offence of failing to protect a girl under the age of 16 from risk of FGM is introduced into the 2003 Act. A person is liable for the offence if they are responsible for a girl at the time when an offence is committed against her and when FGM has actually occurred.
The term "responsible" covers two classes of person: first, a person who has 'parental responsibility' for the girl and has 'frequent contact' with her, and, second, any adult who has assumed responsibility for caring for the girl in the manner of a parent, for example, grandparents who might be caring for the girl during the school holidays.
There are two possible defences: the first is that the defendant did not think that there was a significant risk of the girl being subjected to FGM and could not reasonably have been expected to be aware that there was any such risk. The second defence is that the defendant took reasonable steps to protect the girl from being the victim of FGM. The defendant will have to adduce sufficient evidence for the matter to be considered by the jury; it would then be for the prosecution to demonstrate to the criminal standard of proof, namely beyond reasonable doubt, that the defence had not been made out. We envisage that this provision may lead to more difficult prosecutions given the wide parameters of the two defences. //
I always assumed FGM is one of the things we should all be trying to embrace under the umbrella of "multiculturalism".
i.e. It's not in our culture but we ought not to discourage those for whom it is and perhaps give it a try ourselves. I don't know how the law against FGM ever made it to the statute books.
i.e. It's not in our culture but we ought not to discourage those for whom it is and perhaps give it a try ourselves. I don't know how the law against FGM ever made it to the statute books.
My comments were meant to be sarcastic, hc.
In case it passed you by I find the every idea of Female Mutilation (which I shall retain as its name for that's what it is) abhorrent, vile, disgusting, criminal, repugnant, repulsive and absolutely objectionable.
My sarcasm was directed to those who support multiculturalism. Those who do cannot pick and choose which cultures to accept and which to reject, or which parts you find acceptable and which you do not. In short, it's a non-runner. FGM is part of a culture which has been imported to and become engrained in this country and there's no place for it whatsoever.
In case it passed you by I find the every idea of Female Mutilation (which I shall retain as its name for that's what it is) abhorrent, vile, disgusting, criminal, repugnant, repulsive and absolutely objectionable.
My sarcasm was directed to those who support multiculturalism. Those who do cannot pick and choose which cultures to accept and which to reject, or which parts you find acceptable and which you do not. In short, it's a non-runner. FGM is part of a culture which has been imported to and become engrained in this country and there's no place for it whatsoever.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Sorry pixie but I disagree.
The UK has (or perhaps “had” would be more accurate) a set of acceptable values and practices which roughly speaking comprised our “culture”. People arriving here to settle were expected to comply with those values and practices.
Then came the advent of “multiculturalism”. People whose values and practices were somewhat different to ours came here and, instead of being expected to comply with our culture, were encouraged to continue pursuing their own. So we saw the growth of practices which many people here were not particularly comfortable with, but we were asked to tolerate on the altar of multiculturalism. Things such as the relegation of women to somewhat less than equal citizens; the abhorrence of homosexuality (albeit somewhat “hushed up” for expediency); women roaming around the High Streets masked up (something I personally find particularly offensive). Not too much to worry about (some say). Then we move on to the segregation by gender of audiences for lectures; the “grooming” of young girls in certain northern towns (it’s their “culture” after all). Then on to FGM.
Of course the acceptability of these practices varies across the population. But the upshot is that most of them are alien to the UK and to encourage their perpetuation by newcomers is a grave error. The creeping acceptance by stealth of many of them (under the usual threat of accusations of racism or bigotry) has led to the situation where the grooming issues in northern England went unaddressed for fear of castigation.
No, we cannot pick and choose what is acceptable to be imported and what is not. The UK had a perfectly reasonable set of values (its “culture”) which had been gradually modified over a long period of time by consensus. To import alien cultures over a very short period and expect those already here to embrace them is a mistake of the highest order. FGM is a manifestation of that folly which has taken specific legislation to outlaw and it should never have been necessary.
The UK has (or perhaps “had” would be more accurate) a set of acceptable values and practices which roughly speaking comprised our “culture”. People arriving here to settle were expected to comply with those values and practices.
Then came the advent of “multiculturalism”. People whose values and practices were somewhat different to ours came here and, instead of being expected to comply with our culture, were encouraged to continue pursuing their own. So we saw the growth of practices which many people here were not particularly comfortable with, but we were asked to tolerate on the altar of multiculturalism. Things such as the relegation of women to somewhat less than equal citizens; the abhorrence of homosexuality (albeit somewhat “hushed up” for expediency); women roaming around the High Streets masked up (something I personally find particularly offensive). Not too much to worry about (some say). Then we move on to the segregation by gender of audiences for lectures; the “grooming” of young girls in certain northern towns (it’s their “culture” after all). Then on to FGM.
Of course the acceptability of these practices varies across the population. But the upshot is that most of them are alien to the UK and to encourage their perpetuation by newcomers is a grave error. The creeping acceptance by stealth of many of them (under the usual threat of accusations of racism or bigotry) has led to the situation where the grooming issues in northern England went unaddressed for fear of castigation.
No, we cannot pick and choose what is acceptable to be imported and what is not. The UK had a perfectly reasonable set of values (its “culture”) which had been gradually modified over a long period of time by consensus. To import alien cultures over a very short period and expect those already here to embrace them is a mistake of the highest order. FGM is a manifestation of that folly which has taken specific legislation to outlaw and it should never have been necessary.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.