The Caged Virgin - Ayaan Hirsi Ali [60]
Yet another sophistic legal objection against the introduction of a screening program is that it contradicts our constitution by singling out a specific group to be screened and not the entire Dutch population. These obstructionists argue that imposing a compulsory medical examination on a group of people from high-risk countries is a form of discrimination.
Other antagonists argue that the intrusion of an annual screening test stigmatizes the parents and so also becomes a heavy burden for the child. These people do not think that the introduction of compulsory screening is proportional to the crime. Other antagonists illogically argue that there is no reason to suppose that somebody from a country with a high incidence of genital mutilation is automatically going to become involved in mutilation in the Netherlands—despite ample evidence to the contrary.
I say that the consequences of genital mutilation are so inimical to the well-being of the child that the government should give priority to its duty to act to protect someone from harm. We also believe that even if the risk of genital mutilation is not great, preventive measures are still needed in the light of what might happen and has happened. Female children whose parents come from high-risk countries do in fact run a very real risk of being mutilated because many parents still attach tremendous importance to the tradition.
The government medical report recorded evidence that young girls are subjected to mutilation during school vacations. Because of the hidden effects of the ritual—genitals are by definition covered parts of the body—society can disapprove of the ritual while at the same time denying that it is a problem. If children had their noses, or part of their ears cut off, the government would not be able to get away with its policy of passive tolerance.
Genital mutilation cannot be done legally; parents in the Netherlands know that it is against the law, which is why they have it done during the long school vacation and sometimes in their home country. In doing so, they know that the girl can recover from her injuries without having to explain anything to the outside world. Closed groups, who live in the superstitious conviction that mutilation is good for a child, cannot be expected to be open about such matters. As a result of their conviction, the parents perceive mutilation of their own child not as a criminal activity but as an act of love, a parental duty to their daughter and to their immediate circle.
The government needs to weigh the importance of the parents’ right to privacy against the child’s right to health. Given the gravity of genital mutilation, my party and I would opt for the protection of the child. The services involved in the screening, such as the local health authorities, would treat all information concerning the children and their parents discreetly and protect them.
Merely declaring that the practice of genital mutilation is despicable and degrading is not going to solve the problem. It has not done so thus far, certainly. The preventive effects of education are very limited and almost impossible to measure because of the hidden character and historical nature of the practice. The pressure on immigrants from family in the home countries (family ties are not severed by geographical borders) is too strong to be overcome merely through the provision of information and education. The argument that the tradition will eventually fall away, or that the practice will die out in the Netherlands because it is against the law, is unrealistic.
The proposal for a screening program may not be perfect, but it offers maximum results if the government enforces the law to abolish these abominable practices. It has the advantage of being clear to the parents: they know exactly what to expect. And it has two positive side effects: first, it encourages targeted, efficient delivery of information and education that otherwise would be ineffective and too diffuse. Second, it can make