FGM victims in England may soon be able to sue the government for negligence in failing to prevent FGM. This is just one of the many novel ideas brought up by a new legal report conducted by the Bar of Human Rights in England and Wales. The Bar Committee issued the report as part of the evidence being collected for the Parliamentary Enquiry into female genital mutilation. It “concluded that the UK has been in breach of its international law obligations to protect young women and girls from mutilation.” It went on to say “This constitutes a serious breach of the state’s duty of care.”
The treaties in question that the UK has signed include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), which commits signatories to eliminating discrimination against women. The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child requires signatories to ensure children are not treated inhumanely. In not tackling FGM, the human rights lawyers compiling the report argue that the UK has not lived up to either of these treaties, nor its obligations to prevent torture.
The Parliamentary enquiry into female genital mutilation was set up as part of a new initiative that wants to end the practice of FGM within one generation. It is hoped that the information gleaned in the enquiry will enable the government to tackle FGM much more effectively. The initiative was unveiled to coincide with the UN international zero tolerance for FGM day. The project is supported by the British government, and will operate simultaneously out of offices in London and Nairobi with a grant of $35 million.
The report seems to be part of growing evidence that halting FGM is now a priority issue in Britain, and that authorities are gathering the moral, democratic and legal grounds on which to crackdown on the practice. It provides a solid legal footing from a human rights perspective from which to make an attack on FGM. The report roundly criticizes the British government for their failure to act to prevent FGM until now, and encourages an extremely robust response. There has not been a prosecution for FGM since the practice was first outlawed in 1985.
The coalition government is already implementing some of the strategies recommended in the report, and is looking to strengthen its stance on the issue. A National awareness campaign (recommendation eight) has already been launched, spearheaded by the Guardian in coalition with various women’s organizations such as Equality Now. The most important points were not those that would introduce specific methodologies and legislation, but recommendations that signalled a shift in the way in which FGM is viewed in the UK. Recommendation two states “UK’s legal obligations extend to all children within its jurisdiction.” If it were to be enacted, UK perpetrators of FGM against anyone, whatever their legal status regarding residency or length of stay, would be committing a prosecutable criminal offence. This makes the position very clear, within the UK there will be one law for everyone, regardless of whether or not they are a citizen. Recommendation seven asks the government to “challenge cultural justifications for FGM wherever they arise,” showing that human rights law applies is universal in scope.
The Bar of Human Rights in England and Wales is made up of some of the finest legal minds in the country, and their opinion has huge weight in determining the legal direction the government can take when deciding how best to tackle FGM. They seem to agree with the Clarion Project that culture is no excuse for abuse.