We are committed to ending all forms of forced non-therapeutic genital cutting.
This includes female genital mutilation (FGM) and ritual circumcision of boys.
A child's right to bodily autonomy must not be overridden by other people's religious or cultural beliefs.
The National Secular Society supports a person's most fundamental right to grow up with an intact body and to make their own choices about permanent bodily modifications.
All forms of forced cutting on children's genitals breach basic child rights and safeguarding guidance.
Several communities have genital cutting traditions, often rooted in religious beliefs. But children, and particularly babies and young infants, are incapable of giving consent to such medically unnecessary, harmful, painful and permanent procedures.
Sometimes health benefits for non-therapeutic genital cutting are claimed despite the evidence to the contrary. All forms of forced genital cutting risk serious emotional, sexual, and physical harm – including death.
Child safeguarding must always be prioritised above the desire of adults to express their belief through forced cutting of children's genitals.
Female genital mutilation (FGM)
"It is irrelevant whether or not a person believed the operation to be necessary in the child's best interests as a matter of custom or ritual."
We are committed to the eradication of forced genital cutting of girls and women known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in all its forms.
There are thought to be well over 100,000 women and girls affected by FGM living in the UK. We work with like-minded organisations to protect girls from the harm of forced genital cutting.
FGM practices vary. Some forms involve a pinprick or the removal of a small amount of tissue from the clitoris. Other forms include complete removal of the clitoris and labia, and stitching the vulva closed. Communities which practice FGM often cite religion as a motivation.
All forms of FGM are child abuse and are rightly illegal in the UK. But some British girls are still unprotected. Some have been sent abroad to undergo the procedure and others are having it performed secretly in this country.
There has been only one successful prosecution for FGM since it was banned in 1985. We are concerned that fear of upsetting cultural and religious sensitivities is preventing authorities from tackling FGM effectively.
"...a right specifically for African families who want to carry on their tradition whilst living in this country"
As with all forms of forced genital cutting, those who speak out against FGM are often accused of disrespecting their parents or cultural heritage, and of over-dramatising a 'minor' procedure that others 'don't complain about'. Together with the perceived humiliation of speaking about one's own genitals, these factors combine to ensure that many sufferers are reluctant to speak out.
Ending FGM requires sustained civil society action to change attitudes and inform girls of their rights.
Male circumcision
While all forms of FGM are rightfully banned, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is permitted in UK law.
The foreskin is a normal body part with physical, sexual and immunological functions. Removing it from non-consenting children has been associated with various physical and psychological difficulties. These are likely to be greatly under-reported because people who have experienced sexual harm are often reluctant to reveal it as societal dismissal or stigmatisation may compound the harm.
Circumcision is excruciatingly painful. When performed on babies, little to no anaesthesia is used. Even when performed under anaesthesia on older children, the recovery entails weeks of pain and discomfort.
The procedure is also dangerous. Between 1988 and 2014, there were 22,000 harms recorded by the NHS resulting circumcision. They included scarring and full penis amputation. In 2011, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of non-therapeutic circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham. In 2007, a newborn baby went into cardiac arrest minutes after he was circumcised in a London synagogue, and subsequently died.
Any claims of marginal health benefits of circumcision are extremely contested. No national medical, paediatric, surgical or urological society recommends routine circumcision of all boys as a health intervention. There is now growing concern among doctors that existing ethical principles of non-therapeutic childhood surgery should no longer include an exception for non-therapeutic circumcision.
62% of Brits would support a law prohibiting the circumcision of children for non-medical reasons. Only 13% would oppose it.
There is very limited regulation of non-therapeutic circumcision in the UK. We do not know how many such procedures are performed annually or the degree of harm, as there is no requirement for any follow up or audit and the boys themselves are too young to complain.
It is now being recognised more widely that non-therapeutic religious and cultural circumcision is a breach of children's rights. We want to see the same protections for girls' bodily autonomy extended to boys.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to support an end to non-consensual religious genital cutting
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Court judgement raises questions about FGM and male circumcision in the UK
Posted: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:02
A senior judge has decried the lack of medical experts in the UK with knowledge of female genital mutilation (FGM), particularly in young children.
In a ruling on a child thought by Leeds city council to have been a victim of FGM, the judge, Sir James Munby, described the practice as "evil" and said that "the court must not hesitate to use every weapon in its protective arsenal if faced with a case of actual or anticipated FGM."
Sir James added: "Given what we now know is the distressingly great prevalence of FGM in this country even today, some thirty years after FGM was first criminalised, it is sobering to reflect that this is not merely the first care case where FGM has featured but also, I suspect, if not the first one of only a handful of FGM cases that have yet found their way to the family courts.
"The courts alone, whether the family courts or the criminal courts, cannot eradicate this great evil but they have an important role to play and a very much greater role than they have hitherto been able to play."
The judge said that FGM was "an abuse of human rights" that had "no basis in any religion."
In his ruling, Sir James sought to distinguish between the severity of different types of female genital mutilation as compared with male circumcision. The judge described the "curiosity" of the law allowing male circumcision whilst it outlaws FGM. Sir James said that law is "still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms."
The case Sir James was considering concerned the adoption of two children of Muslim parents, named only as G and B.
Difficulties with expert testimony made it hard to determine if the girl had been the victim of female genital mutilation or not, and there was extensive discussion in the ruling over what type of FGM the child may have been subjected to.
Considering whether G had suffered Type IV FGM, defined by the World Health Organization as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization," Sir James found that if "FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision."
Despite finding that some Type IV FGM was comparable with male circumcision, the judge ruled that "'reasonable' parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision", in part because "male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons" whilst "FGM has no basis in any religion." The judge noted that male circumcision was seen by some as "providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits" though accepted that "opinions are divided."
The judge concluded that although "both involve significant harm, there is a very clear distinction in family law between FGM and male circumcision."
Prior to a change in the case pressed by the local authority, the children's case would have depended upon G's Type IV FGM, despite the fact that "on any objective view it might be thought that G would have had subjected to a process much less invasive, no more traumatic (if, indeed, as traumatic) and with no greater long-term consequences, whether physical, emotional or psychological, than the process to which B has been or will be subjected."
Much discussion in court centred over whether G had a small scar on her genitals or not, which led Sir James to discuss the relative severity of this variety of Type IV female genital mutilation and male circumcision.
Making suggestions for the future, Sir James drew attention to a "dearth of medical experts" in paediatric FGM and noted the importance of "knowledge and understanding of the classification and categorisation of the various types of FGM."
House of Lords debates FGM and Sharia Law in the UK
Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:31
On Thursday 11 December, there were debates in the House of Lords on female genital mutilation (FGM) and the "impact of Sharia Law on the United Kingdom."
In the first debate. on FGM, raised by Baroness Rendell of Babergh, peers asked about Government progress in encouraging prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.
Baroness Tonge, an honorary associate of the NSS, spoke of how FGM "causes untold physical damage to a woman" and equated the practice to a family member sexually abusing a young girl. Lady Tonge called for parents to be prosecuted if their child is the victim of FGM.
Lord Faulks, Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, noted that "it is a source of frustration to all noble Lords that while FGM has been a specific criminal offence for 29 years—the original Act—no prosecutions were brought."
Addressing an ongoing FGM court case, Lord Faulks added that "It is probably not appropriate to comment on what one hopes the outcome of the case would be, but, whatever happens, the publicity that will attend that prosecution should, I hope, send a strong message in itself."
The Minister cited research part-funded by the Government which "revealed that approximately 60,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK."
Lord Faulks told the House that: "The Government are committed to preventing and ending the harmful and unacceptable practice [of FGM]. I agree that successful prosecutions are a key part of stamping out FGM and would send out a strong message on the rule of law."
In his closing remarks, Lord Faulks added that he was glad that "we have left the exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" behind, and he told the House that "the Government are committed to doing everything we can" to stamp out FGM.
In the following debate Baroness Flather, also an honorary associate of the NSS, asked for the Government's "assessment of the impact of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, particularly on women."
Baroness Flather noted that there were now more than 80 Sharia councils in the UK, and argued that "they are not trained lawyers" and raised concerns that the councils do not keep proper records and make "ad hoc" judgements. Citing the retired Bishop of Rochester, Lady Flather argued that "Sharia is discriminatory against women, not only in relation to marriage and children, but in most aspects."
Baroness Warsi began her comments by urging Lady Flather to "read back the speech that she just made." Lady Warsi questioned whether the peers were "debating a series of headlines which regularly appear in the Daily Mail." Lady Flather responded that "there is so much evidence which has been collected by various researchers and taken from women. These are their own stories and views; this is not about headlines."
Lady Warsi continued, arguing that there was a difference between "Sharia and Sharia law" and that "Sharia exists in the United Kingdom in our multicultural society." Lady Warsi raised the example of Sharia-compliant financial bonds and student loans, as well as halal food and circumcision.
Addressing the issue of Muslim women left without rights in unrecognised nikah Islamic 'marriages', Lady Warsi suggested that the Government might formally recognise Islamic religious 'marriages' so that men with multiple wives could be charged with bigamy.
Baroness Cox then drew attention to the situation of women trapped in Islamic 'marriages', and discussed a new report on that subject (covered by the NSS earlier this week). The report detailed the concerns that Lady Flather raised, that women in Islamic 'marriages' are left without legal protection in the event of a 'divorce' and that many Muslim women are unaware of their legal rights.
Lady Cox said: "several Muslim women have told me that men in their communities may each have up to 20 children," adding that this leads to children growing up in "dysfunctional families." Citing information from the report, Lady Cox said: "Two-thirds of those who are married are in polygamous marriages. Some say that they did not know that they were a second or third wife when they were married. Of these, almost all said that their husbands fail to provide them with financial support, in contravention of Islamic teaching. Many of these women are desperately unhappy."
Lord Ahmad, concluding the debate, said "there is no parallel court system in this country" and that the Government "have no intention of changing this position in relation to any part of England and Wales." Lord Ahmad added that "the law of the land will prevail irrespective of what religious practice or community you may belong to."
NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood, who was present at the debates, said it was "shameful" that despite being outlawed, so much FGM was still being carried out in the UK and "going almost entirely unpunished."
On the subject of unregistered marriages, he said it was "deeply problematic" that so many people were undergoing Islamic marriages without also undergoing civilly registered marriages. " In the event of a marriage break-up, this leaves many British citizens, particularly women, in a very vulnerable position without any financial remedies. It also allows polygamy to be practised on an industrial scale."
He added: "Lady Tonge, Lady Flather and Lady Cox should be congratulated for their part in these debates on topics which the Government and Parliament have in the past shied away from. It is to be hoped that the Minister's assurance that "exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" has been left behind augurs better for the future."
The full text of the debates can be read here.
