• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CBS News

Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit

DETROIT — A federal judge dismissed some charges Tuesday against eight people — including two doctors — in the genital mutilation of nine girls at a suburban Detroit clinic, finding it's up to states rather than Congress to regulate the practice.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman dismissed mutilation and conspiracy charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who performed the surgery, and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who allowed his clinic in Livonia, Michigan, to be used for the procedure.

The same charges were dismissed against Attar's wife, Farida, and Tahera Shafiq, who assisted in the procedure, as well as four women who took their daughters to the clinic.

Four of girls are from Michigan; the others are residents of Illinois and Minnesota.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit (female genital mutilation)," Friedman wrote in a 28-page opinion.

COMMENT:-

Quite right!!!

The unconstitutional interference with the several states' right to permit female genital mutilation simply cannot be tolerated.

Like "Dred Scot" the decision is "judicially correct" and "morally repugnant".

Of course, possibly if the Judge had been taught about the "parens patria" jurisdiction of the courts in law school he might have ruled differently.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,983
Reaction score
7,741
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
These abusers needed to be stopped through some other means than the Commerce Clause.

Now girls are paying and abusers are not because legislators relied too much on the misuse of the Constitution instead of advocating for good laws crafted by constitutional means.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,224
Reaction score
9,906
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
These abusers needed to be stopped through some other means than the Commerce Clause.

Now girls are paying and abusers are not because legislators relied too much on the misuse of the Constitution instead of advocating for good laws crafted by constitutional means.

Well, I would argue those laws exist and are on the books already. Specifically, Michigan's child abuse statutes under the state's penal code.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, I would argue those laws exist and are on the books already. Specifically, Michigan's child abuse statutes under the state's penal code.

The problem with that is that this disgusting practice can be supported under the "Freedom of Religion" set out in the First Amendment.

(Don't forget, if "female genital mutilation" can NOT be defended under the "Freedom of Religion" clause, then neither can "circumcision" and then there'd be hell to pay (pardon the pun).
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,224
Reaction score
9,906
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The problem with that is that this disgusting practice can be supported under the "Freedom of Religion" set out in the First Amendment.

(Don't forget, if "female genital mutilation" can NOT be defended under the "Freedom of Religion" clause, then neither can "circumcision" and then there'd be hell to pay (pardon the pun).

Well, a couple things. First, nowhere in the Quran is female genital mutilation specifically mandated or encouraged. Many Islamic scholars actually protest against its religious validity. It is mainly a cultural practice arising out of Africa and predated the emergence of Islam. So the First Amendment argument would be dubious at best. Second, just because it may be religiously mandated is not a protection in and of itself, as laws that are designed as religiously-neutral are generally upheld unless they were discriminatory in the first place. Third, as far as the severity and physicality of FGM, the act of removing the clitoris from a young girl is more akin to slicing off the glans from a penis than it is cutting off a foreskin. And many women opt, typically for cosmetic reasons, to have labiaplasties to reduce the size of their labia minora; a much less severe procedure than a clitorectomy.
 
Last edited:

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, a couple things. First, nowhere in the Quran is female genital mutilation specifically mandated or encouraged. Many Islamic scholars actually protest against its religious validity. It is mainly a cultural practice arising out of Africa and predated the emergence of Islam. So the First Amendment argument would be dubious at best. Second, just because it may be religiously mandated is not a protection in and of itself, as laws that are designed as religiously-neutral are generally upheld unless they were discriminatory in the first place. Third, as far as the severity and physicality of FGM, the act of removing the clitoris from a young girl is more akin to slicing off the glans from a penis than it is cutting off a foreskin. And many women opt, typically for cosmetic reasons, to have labiaplasties to reduce the size of their labia minora; a much less severe procedure than a clitorectomy.

I didn't say that the argument would prevail, only that it would be made.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Well, a couple things. First, nowhere in the Quran is female genital mutilation specifically mandated or encouraged. Many Islamic scholars actually protest against its religious validity. It is mainly a cultural practice arising out of Africa and predated the emergence of Islam. So the First Amendment argument would be dubious at best. Second, just because it may be religiously mandated is not a protection in and of itself, as laws that are designed as religiously-neutral are generally upheld unless they were discriminatory in the first place. Third, as far as the severity and physicality of FGM, the act of removing the clitoris from a young girl is more akin to slicing off the glans from a penis than it is cutting off a foreskin. And many women opt, typically for cosmetic reasons, to have labiaplasties to reduce the size of their labia minora; a much less severe procedure than a clitorectomy.

I don’t think the argument that a particular religious belief is not in their actual religious text has ever carried much weight in court cases. You just have to show that some members DO believe it is a requirement.
 

Atheist 2020

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
290
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
There is no medical need to have this done to girls in the first place. Its the parents that need to be placed in prison and lose their rights to their daughters.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
By law, the decision was correct.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
By law, the decision was correct.

So was Dred Scott.

People then (eventually) took action to fix the laws that made Dred Scott "legally correct".

Here? ... ? ... ? .... ?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So was Dred Scott.
Irrelevant as to whether this decision was legally correct or not (which it clearly was).

People then (eventually) took action to fix the laws that made Dred Scott "legally correct".
And?
1. I never addressed what may or may not happen in the future.
2. This comment of yours is also irrelevant to whether or not the Court's decision is legally correct at this point in time.​
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
FGM has no basis in religion.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Irrelevant as to whether this decision was legally correct or not (which it clearly was).

Yep - in BOTH cases.

Equally - in BOTH cases - the decision was "morally repugnant".

The laws were fixed to remedy Dred Scott. Here?

And?
1. I never addressed what may or may not happen in the future.
2. This comment of yours is also irrelevant to whether or not the Court's decision is legally correct at this point in time.​

True, but it most certainly grew out of it.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
FGM has no basis in religion.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

As you interpret "religion".

Sikhs have argued for their right to wear turbans "on religious grounds" and been successful - even though there is no "scriptural" basis for that claim.

Catholics have argued for their right to wear crucifixes "on religious grounds" and been successful - even though there is no "scriptural" basis for that claim.

Admittedly the "moral repugnance quotient" for female genital "trimming" ("mutilation" is semantically loaded [after all "circumcision" is "male genital mutilation" if you come right down to it]) is one hell of a lot higher than wearing articles of clothing/adornment, the basis of the argument ("This is something that the people of my religion do to indicate their belief in God's Word.") is identical.

PS - I don't say that the argument would prevail (and would be rather aghast if it did) but that does NOT detract from the fact that it CAN be made.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As you interpret "religion".

There is no religious text that states to mutilate girls. It is also illegal in the whole Islamic world.

Sikhs have argued for their right to wear turbans "on religious grounds" and been successful - even though there is no "scriptural" basis for that claim.

Yea, and?

Catholics have argued for their right to wear crucifixes "on religious grounds" and been successful - even though there is no "scriptural" basis for that claim.

Well that is a legal problem.. again there is no religious basis demanding wearing of said crucifix.

Admittedly the "moral repugnance quotient" for female genital "trimming" ("mutilation" is semantically loaded [after all "circumcision" is "male genital mutilation" if you come right down to it]) is one hell of a lot higher than wearing articles of clothing/adornment, the basis of the argument ("This is something that the people of my religion do to indicate their belief in God's Word.") is identical.

PS - I don't say that the argument would prevail (and would be rather aghast if it did) but that does NOT detract from the fact that it CAN be made.

Problem is American law and the constitution. It has been used to justify everything from rape, incest, mutilations and mass murder... because it is "religion".. Religion can be and is often wrong because it is based on 2000 year old crap that modern society can not and will not tolerate.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
True, but it most certainly grew out of it.
"Yep" and "true" are the only relevant things in your reply.

Nor would I call Amending the Constitution as growing out of the ruling.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"Yep" and "true" are the only relevant things in your reply.

Nor would I call Amending the Constitution as growing out of the ruling.

Indeed, the several States should have been left to decide whether or not they wished to abolish slavery (after all, there isn't anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over "slavery") - right?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Indeed, the several States should have been left to decide whether or not they wished to abolish slavery (after all, there isn't anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over "slavery") - right?
Clearly you have no clue what the topis is.

The Courts decision was correct.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Clearly you have no clue what the topis is.

The Courts decision was correct.

You might not have noticed that, but that is exactly what I said - provided that you mean "legally correct".

The "Dred Scott" decision was also "legally correct".

BOTH decisions were "morally repugnant".

The US government acted to rectify the situation which allowed American courts to render a "legally correct" decision that was "morally repugnant" with respect to "Dred Scott" (and the "conservatives" are all in agreement with that action.

With respect to the current situation, the "conservatives" want to maintain a situation where an individual state can do nothing and thereby allow courts to continue to render decisions that are both "legally correct" and "morally repugnant".

PS - Did you happen to notice who the OP on this thread was?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You might not have noticed that, but that is exactly what I said - provided that you mean "legally correct".

The "Dred Scott" decision was also "legally correct".

BOTH decisions were "morally repugnant".

The US government acted to rectify the situation which allowed American courts to render a "legally correct" decision that was "morally repugnant" with respect to "Dred Scott" (and the "conservatives" are all in agreement with that action.

With respect to the current situation, the "conservatives" want to maintain a situation where an individual state can do nothing and thereby allow courts to continue to render decisions that are both "legally correct" and "morally repugnant".
Morally repugnant? Clearly not to those who are submitting their children for the procedure. In other words; I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct. That is what matters.


PS - Did you happen to notice who the OP on this thread was?
Of course, and you still can't get it right.
I commented on one specific and you seem not able to accept that. That is on you.
 

Obscurity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
11,484
Reaction score
5,148
Location
PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Morally repugnant? Clearly not to those who are submitting their children for the procedure. In other words; I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct. That is what matters.


Of course, and you still can't get it right.
I commented on one specific and you seem not able to accept that. That is on you.

Utter nonsense. I find it morally repugnant, and ethically and LEGALLY bankrupt for this to be allowed "on technicality".

Legality is not the only thing that matters here.

This is abhorrent and grotesque and the doctors, judges, parents that allowed, enabled and mutilated these children should all be hung.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Utter nonsense.
Yes. Your post is utter nonsense.

I find it morally repugnant, and ethically and LEGALLY bankrupt for this to be allowed "on technicality".
Clearly you didn't understand the first time it was said.

I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct.


Legality is not the only thing that matters here.
Yes it is.


and the doctors, judges, parents that allowed, enabled and mutilated these children should all be hung.
:lamo

That isn't gonna happen.
 

Obscurity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
11,484
Reaction score
5,148
Location
PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes. Your post is utter nonsense.


Clearly you didn't understand the first time it was said.

I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct.


Yes it is.


:lamo

That isn't gonna happen.

No one gives a damn about this being the correct ruling on legal grounds. You can keep repeating it all you like but it won't matter.

At the end of the day, this is a vile practice and a vile, wicked deed, and you, and anyone else who excuses this bull****, are equally vile, repugnant and grotesque.

This is the reason I despise religion.

Religion makes otherwise good people do evil, wicked things.

If a law is unethical, **** the law.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No one gives a damn about this being the correct ruling on legal grounds.
Wrong.

You can keep repeating it all you like but it won't matter.
The decision is legally correct. This is what matters.


[SUP]At the end of the day, this is a vile practice and a vile, wicked deed, and you, and anyone else who excuses this bull****, are equally vile, repugnant and grotesque.

This is the reason I despise religion.

Religion makes otherwise good people do evil, wicked things.

If a law is unethical, **** the law.[/SUP]
:lamo Clearly you are not paying attention.
Again.
I don't give a **** about your personal opinion.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant as to whether or not the decision is legally correct.
 
Top Bottom