Female Circumcision in Banjar Culture: Navigating Customary Law, Islamic Law, and Human Rights

Reviewed by: Human Rights Discourses in a Global Network: Books beyond Borders by Lena Khor Amy Lynn Klemm Lena Khor. Human Rights Discourses in a Global Network: Books beyond Borders. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2013. 294p. In her original study of human rights discourse, Lena Khor addresses the concern by other scholars and critics of the globalization of human rights discourse. While [End Page 233] other scholars maintain that the discourse of human rights is being forced upon us from an imperialistic stance from what is referred to as the “Global North,” Khor argues for an exemplary move away from using human rights as a term to mean an absolute and imprecise thing, and instead she focuses on how human rights is a communally constructed language. She first broaches and explains her term “global discourse network of human rights” in the “Introduction” (Khor, 4). She devotes the first chapter to show the reader how the human rights discourse is now a global network, and delves into the language that is constructed to elucidate the human rights movement. Khor uses Paul Rusesabagina as an example of someone who has witnessed genocide and explores his autobiography An Ordinary Man as well as Terry George’s film Hotel Rwanda in her second chapter. The non-profit humanitarian outfit of Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) or Doctors without Borders is presented as a proposed human rights hero/savior in the third chapter, while in the fourth chapter Khor uses Michael Ondaatje’s novel Anil’s Ghost to illustrate the restrictions of the movement. In her Conclusion, she returns and revisits the subjects of Doctors without Borders to further highlight some of the controversies of the global human rights movement as well as the innate tensions. Throughout the entire book, it appears as though Lena Khor’s sole mission is to offer a new way of thinking about human rights through a network of global discourse and language. While there are numerous things that Khor executes very well throughout this book, this review will focus on the two which are the most successful. The first is her exploration of the ways in which scholarly criticism can oftentimes hold the cause back, and the second is that even the heroes and saviors of the cause are not above the same censure. It should also be noted that the book is formatted in such a way that it is impossible to miss Khor’s mission for her book. Each chapter is filled with italicized words and phrases that are key terms she wishes the reader to know, and the subheadings in each chapter keep the argument organized, something that is essential when tackling such a large subject matter as global human rights. Khor is breathing new life into the topic of global human rights by exploring the ways in which the language of human rights is crucial to either furthering or holding back the movement. She offers a complete overview of the difficulties in writing about and discussing global human rights, paying particular attention to the ways in which those who have witnessed genocide, such as Paul Rusesbagina, are sometimes criticized as making themselves out to be more of a hero than they really are. In the same vein, she uses Michael Ondaatje’s novel Anil’s Ghost to draw attention to how scholarly criticism, that so often accompanies these textual works on human rights, undermines the author, the subject of the work, and any [End Page 234] personal or professional interest of the reader. Every aspect of a film, organization, or textual work is under a critical microscope to ensure that it meets the criteria that scholars feel allows it to be a reputable voice in the field. This is one of the most important things that Khor discusses, since we can only get so far in the fight for global human rights when literature, film, and organizations are being criticized by scholars and theorists who find fault in each. Critics claim that authors such as Ondaatje have a bias about the topic on which they are writing since they are from a particular area; while others claim that he is not “Sri-Lankan enough” to...

Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues and the accompanying global ‘anti-violence against women’ activist project by now has come to embody female liberation from violence all over the world. What has ...

Bogaletch Gebre: ending female genital mutilation in Ethiopia

Female genital mutilation is a human rights issue of concern to all women and men.

Female genital mutilation: why are we so radical?

Roughly 100 000 immigrants in the Nordic countries originate from areas in Africa where the tradition of FGC is still well known. A majority of this immigrant group consists of Somali women and men (approximately 25 000 in Sweden 16 000 in Denmark 8000 in Norway and 7000 in Finland less than 10 in Iceland; national statistics figures). FGC in the Nordic countries became an issue in the 1980s. The civil war in Somalia caused many Somalis to leave their country in the early 1990s. The arrival of large groups of Somali families forced the Nordic societies to take a stand on the health issue of FGC. Traditionally Somali girls are infibulated which involves excision of the clitoris labia minora and stitching of the vaginal opening. Health providers and social professionals in the Nordic countries are therefore obliged to know how to handle this issue. The primary motives for FGC in Somalia are that the practice is experienced as a religious duty and a prerequisite of marriage. Based on clinical experience the most common reaction to FGC in a Western country is one of disgust and rejection. However in countries where FGC is practiced it is looked upon as the "normal" state sometimes expressed in line with the following citations: "being smooth in the genital area without flaps is a beauty ideal" "if the labia minora are not cut they will continue to grow" "the clitoris and the labia minora have to be concealed in order to reduce sexual desire to reduce the risk of promiscuity promote fertility and make childbirth easier or the girl will not become a woman" "circumcision will ensure that the woman is a virgin as she gets married." These examples of motives do not necessarily coexist in the same ethnic groups. Thus FGC has deep and complex social and cultural roots that we cannot ignore when discussing how to best deal with FGC as a health issue in the Nordic countries. (excerpt)

Female genital mutilation: Knowledge, attitude and practices of Flemish midwives

Human Rights & Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. By Sally Engle Merry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Pp. ix+269. $55.00 cloth; $20.00 paper. Cultural Bourdieu taught us, denotes critical and diacritical markings of social status, distinguishing us from them. Human Rights 6? Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice, Merry invites us to rethink culture as capital, with provocative implications. the new international order, culture, like capital, is at once a resource and the instantiation of complex relationships embedded in time and place. And, in the current global movement to promote human rights and eradicate gender violence, cultures, like different forms of capital, have more or less currency. Merry begins her analysis with a simple but powerful statement: In order for human rights ideas to be effective ... they need to be translated into local terms and situated within local contexts of power and meaning. They need, in other words, to be remade in the vernacular (p. 1). Merry explores the work of creating, exporting, interpreting, and implementing human rights discourse. She begins at the top-at the United Nations (UN)guiding us into the corridors and meeting rooms in which (mostly) women write and debate model legislation (mostly) for nations of the South. The UN officials, nongovernmental organization members, and state representatives involved in this process hold standards that emphasize personal autonomy, security, and equal rights. the culture of the human rights activists, these premises are nonnegotiable. Enter next into this world the complex array of cultures as commodity forms in which different use and exchange values compete. Cultures that protect human and gender rights are highly valued; those that permit gender inequity and ignore gender violence are not. From the UN Merry takes us into the Asia-Pacific region, visiting Hawaii, Delhi, Beijing, Fiji, and Hong Kong, where human rights laws are being implemented. She describes organizations, programs, and networks that promote human and gender rights. She finds common patterns in each place, that the universalizing culture we have encountered at the UN and its human rights discourse homogenizes. Everywhere it carries forward the mantra of the autonomous person, the safe body, and the rights-bearing citizen. Everywhere, too, it uses similar tactics: pressure on states to adopt accords and agreements, surveys to document abuse, training workshops to eradicate violence, hotlines and shelters for victims, counseling sessions for batterers, and T-shirts that advocate freedom from violence. To be successful, however, local advocates must translate theory into community action. This discussion of the translators, the people who adapt universal principles to local conditions and institutions, is one of the book's most insightful. How do grassroots activists translate global human rights into a language and praxis that is meaningful to people who are far from the centers where such laws are created? …

Female genital cutting: distinguishing the rights from the health agenda.

Human rights and the Third World have always had a troubled and uneasy relationship ever since they were invented as epistemological categories at the end of the Second World War. Human-rights discourse has generally treated the Third World as object, as a domain or terrain of deployment of its universal imperatives. Indeed, the very term “human rights violation” evokes images of Third World violence – dictators, ethnic violence, and female genital mutilations – whereas First World violence is commonly referred to as “civil rights” violations. At least in this sense, “human rights” have traditionally never been universal. On the other hand, the Third World – at least that which is represented by its governments – has looked upon human rights as ‘luxury goods’ that they could ill afford in their march towards development and modernization or as tools of cultural imperialism intended to disrupt the ‘traditional’ cultures of their societies. Indeed, many non-western societies do not have words that are synonymous with human rights. In many of these societies, for ordinary people, the words “human rights” often evoke images of thieves, robbers, and criminals rather than political prisoners, torture victims, or hungry children. While this basic disjuncture and asynchrony continue to pervade the relationship between human rights and the Third World, a new sensibility has emerged. In this new sensibility, the idea of human rights has emerged as the language of progressive politics and resistance in the Third World, as seen by the West .

This article starts with the occasion of the 2012 London Olympics as “The Women’s Olympics” and looks both backward and forward to situate this occasion within the global north’s discourses of global human rights and neoliberal feminism. The global north’s coverage of the 2012 Olympics and Oiselle’s branding campaigns of Sarah Attar acts as data. I use transnational feminist analysis in combination with Foucauldian discourse analysis to trace how the global north’s discourses of human rights and neoliberal feminism travel and operate in transnational sporting contexts. As such, I trace the female athlete’s representation as white, middle-class, and heterosexual as a regime of truth. The discourses of human rights and neoliberal feminism, when networked with commodified images of women from the middle east and the politics of US feminism and the middle east, uncovers the neoliberal feminist cultural logics surrounding the branding of Attar.

We commend Berg and Underland for taking on the momentous task of systematically reviewing and summarizing available data on the association between female genital mutilation (FGM) and obstetric outcomes [1, 2]. FGM is an important health and human rights issue and reliable evidence on its effects on health is critical for advocacy to encourage its abandonment. Despite the obvious hard work and adherence to a prespecified protocol, there are two major problems with this systematic review that undermine the validity of the conclusions reached. The first problem is that the review did not distinguish between studies of fundamentally differing designs and combined their results to reach summary estimates. The studies included in the Berg and Underland review were from a wide variety of countries and all were observational [1]. Three of the studies included in the review ascertained FGM status prior to the occurrence of delivery and followed the study participants for their outcomes at delivery [3–5]. The rest of the studies ascertained FGM status and obstetric outcomes at the same time, often retrospectively. However, all studies were classified as cross-sectional and their results were combined. The authors claim that there is a lack of cohort study data (i.e., prospective data) on FGM, hence difficulties coming to conclusions about causality, despite the existence of the three studies with prospectively ascertained FGM and follow-up for outcomes, including the UNDP/UNFPA/World Bank/World Health Organization Special Programme on Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (WHO/HRP) study outlined below [3]. The evidence contained in the higher quality studies is effectively obscured by the lower quality data from the more numerous cross-sectional studies. The second is that crude results were used to calculate summary estimates of the relationship of FGM to obstetric outcomes, even when appropriately adjusted results were available. The obstetric outcomes examined in the review include prolonged labor, obstetric tears/lacerations, Caesarean section, episiotomy, instrumental delivery, obstetric/postpartum haemorrhage, and difficult labor/dystocia. The operational definitions of several of these endpoints differ across countries and between hospitals within countries, as do the frequencies of the endpoints related to interventions during delivery, since these depend on prevailing, often hospital-specific obstetric practices. The prevalence of the different types of FGM varies widely within and between countries. The occurrence of these exposures and outcomes are also likely to vary according to participant factors such as age and parity. Therefore, a range of confounding factors are likely to be important in assessing the relationship of FGM to obstetric outcome in the data used for this systemic review and meta-analysis. However, the authors used RevMan v5.2.4 [6], which is a program largely designed to deal with randomized controlled trials, to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) from crude numbers and hence did not account for potential confounding factors and did not use adjusted estimates of risk, even when these were published. To illustrate the pitfalls of using this inappropriate methodology for meta-analysis of observational data, we used data from the study conducted by WHO/HRP on obstetric outcomes in women exposed to FGM [3], which is among the studies included in the review by Berg and Underland [1, 2]. We compared the adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates from the WHO/HRP study in the original study publication in the Lancet with the RR estimates for the WHO/HRP study calculated by Berg and Underland from crude data, pooling all types of FGMs into one “exposed” group (see Table 1). The WHO/HRP study was conducted in 28 hospitals in 6 countries in Africa and ascertained the type of FGM by clinical examination in individual women prior to delivery, along with data on a range of potential confounding factors. The means of identifying and measuring potential confounding factors is explained in the original publication of the WHO/HRP study [3]. The four crude estimates calculated by Berg and Underland differ substantively from the original adjusted WHO/HRP results, and for two of them, namely, perineal tears and Caesarean section, the crude results suggest, erroneously, that FGM protects against the examined obstetric outcome, directly contrary to the adjusted relative risk estimates in the original Lancet publication [3] (see Table 1). The use of crude numbers to estimate these relative risks from multicentre observational studies is incorrect and produces misleading results. Table 1 Relative risk (RR) estimates (95% confidence limits) for health outcomes in a data set on obstetric outcome of delivery by FGM status and method of analysis. Adjusted RRs from WHO/HRP 2006 and unadjusted RRs from Berg and Underland 2013. Berg and Underland refer to a dose-response relationship as an important factor in determining a causal relationship but fail to consider it when deliberating on the issue of causality between FGM and poor obstetric outcome. In the WHO/HRP study, there was a dose-response relationship between the severity of the FGM (from FGM type l through type lll) and the magnitude of the relative risk estimate for virtually all examined obstetric outcomes (Caesarean section, postpartum haemorrhage, extended maternal hospital stay, resuscitation of infant, inpatient perinatal death, fresh stillbirth, episiotomy, and vaginal tear), except for risk of an infant with low birth weight (LBW), macerated stillbirth, and Apgar score < 4. This pattern of dose-response was similar among parous and nulliparous women. Based on the findings of their meta-analysis and review, Berg and Underland conclude that “the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as being too low to warrant conclusions about a causal relationship between FGM/C and obstetric complications” and that “inconsistencies in results and estimate imprecision” contribute to this conclusion [1]. By using erroneous statistical methods for meta-analysis and inappropriately combining the results of disparate study designs, it is not surprising that the authors arrived at this bland conclusion, which does not do justice to the available evidence. The evidence indicates that the risk of many adverse obstetric outcomes is increased in women who have had FGM, compared to those who have not had it, and that this relationship is likely to be causal.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) remains a critical global health and human rights issue, with more than 200 million women and girls affected worldwide. Despite increased awareness and international efforts to eradicate the practice, FGM persists across various cultural and geographic contexts, particularly in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This review examines the multifaceted impact of FGM on female sexual health, drawing from clinical, psychological, and sociocultural perspectives to provide a comprehensive analysis of its consequences. FGM encompasses a range of procedures involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The practice has profound and lasting implications on sexual function, including diminished libido, dyspareunia (pain during intercourse), anorgasmia, and reduced genital sensitivity. These outcomes stem from both anatomical alterations and psychological trauma, leading to a complex interplay of physical and emotional dysfunction. Further, FGM is associated with complications such as chronic infections, scarring, and obstetric trauma, which exacerbate sexual discomfort and reproductive challenges. Psychologically, women with FGM may experience anxiety, depression, body image disorders, and post-traumatic stress, all of which further impair sexual well-being. Cultural taboos and stigma surrounding sexuality often silence affected women, impeding access to medical and psychological support. This review highlights the urgent need for culturally sensitive healthcare services, trauma-informed counselling, and legal frameworks to support survivors. It also emphasizes the importance of comprehensive sex education and community-driven advocacy to combat FGM. Addressing the sexual health repercussions of FGM is essential to promoting bodily autonomy, gender equity, and holistic well-being.

This chapter examines how the human rights phenomenon has evolved both in Finland and internationally since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted. By connecting this analysis to post-World War II era political developments, the chapter observes how the human rights discourse has moved from the periphery of the Finnish society to its centre. The chapter investigates how the rise of human rights development is reflected in the Finnish context by examining three elements of the human rights phenomenon: the human rights discourse, the community and artifacts. It considers the contemporary human rights phenomenon to have commenced with the adoption of the UDHR in 1948. Expansion has been the most salient element of the global human rights phenomenon. Thematic expansion of academic invocations has been accompanied by a steady increase of academic journals focussing on human rights.Keywords: Finnish human rights discourse; global human rights phenomenon; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Changing culture to end FGM