Friday, May 17, 2013

Have we lost the war against Female Genital Mutilation?


From Brother Ivo:

The Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed in 2003 with little scrutiny, and no opposition. Since then, no prosecutions have taken place, and it has been reported that each year some 7000 women continue to present themselves at a sample of London maternity clinics having suffered this procedure - some 5 per cent of births. In the UK, we have 17 clinics devoted to reconstructions and remedying the health consequences of badly-performed operations. The prohibition does not appear to be having much practical effect. Ordinarily, this would provoke calls for a review.

Unfortunately it seems to be a subject which continues to be swept under the carpet. We have dealt with it once; we have moved on.

France passed similar legislation at the same time, but at least they followed it up and subsequently brought over 100 prosecutions. Additionally, the French, being less squeamish about offending minority cultural sensitivities, routinely monitor children at risk within communities where the practice is likely to be found. If one thinks about it, it is not a crime easily concealed from the medical community, and we expect them to report crime in a variety of circumstances. So how is it that the police appear more active in relation to the Twittersphere than in relation to a widespread crime in relation to this Act?

Brother Ivo needs to be clear: he finds the whole idea of such mutilation utterly repellant and none of the issues he explores in this post is intended to apply to children. Not only does a 'procedure' with no health benefits plainly constitute 'significant harm' within the terms of the 1987 Status of Children Act, but disfigurement of those who do not and cannot lawfully consent is never acceptable under any circumstances, ever.

When he thinks for a moment what some of these little girls suffer, he is overwhelmed with anger and could probably be persuaded to attach the millstone around the necks of perpetrators prior to their being cast into the depths. Sadly, the police and Crown Prosecution Service appear less passionate about the subject.

He has no more liking for adults undergoing the procedure, for when God created Eve he saw that she too was good. It is the sin of human pride to think oneself capable and entitled to improve on the Lord's design. But, for these purposes, Brother Ivo is prepared to move on and consider the matter more broadly with a view to exploring the inconsistencies of human autonomy.

It seems that we were prepared to write the headline by passing the Act, but are unwilling to press on and engage in the practicalities that might vigorously put an end to this barbaric practice.

In any other sphere, we might expect to find our progressive friends, including feminists, pointing out that the legislation isn't working, and that the better focus for action would be to 'respect diversity' and to promote 'harm reduction'. The latter is currently the argument deployed in relation to the war on drugs, and before that, the same approach was used to change the prohibition on abortion, when it was asserted that it was better to engage with an evil than to attempt to suppress it.

It is in that latter sphere that the parallel is closest, for do we not constantly hear about 'the woman's right to choose'?

Whenever anyone seeks an adjustment of abortion time limits, are we not confronted with the shrillest cries that women must have absolute control of their own bodies without legislative Interference? If the entire baby has no 'legal personality' to be protected, it seems hard to see why the clitoris should be individually favoured. It is indeed occurring to Brother Ivo that the only purpose currently served by the Act is to act as a totem: a 'crime against feminism'.

Usually when such an Act falls into question, or even disrepute, our progressive friends move towards a preference for replacing prohibition with regulation, and in this instance a strategy such as a more hygienic management of the health risks. We heard it in relationship to the backstreet abortion, and currently hear the same argument deployed for needle exchanges for drugs users or licensed brothels. Why not here?

If one thinks about it, it is odd for a culture to regard itself as superior in condemning the body dysmorphia of adult women from sub Saharan Africa whilst promoting the 'boob job' the 'vajazzle' and even the 'designer vagina'.

It actually gets curiouser and curiouser.

When we turn to the 'Transgendered community', we have no such squeamishness. Our NHS pays for similar surgery - even, occasionally, for serving prisoners - and the philosophical underpinning appears to be that such re-configuring is not only to be 'celebrated' as a form of 'liberation', despite the considerable mutilation involved, but the passing of adverse comment risks the commentator being accused or even prosecuted for 'hate speech'.

So wherein lies the difference?

If an adult woman wanted such surgery in the UK, what precisely is the basis for not respecting her wishes, given the raft similar operations currently being undertaken without demur?

One suspects that the answers, if given, would centre upon patriarchal power forcing women into such a demeaning decision, as if no man ever deployed emotional, physical, economic or cultural reasons to impose his preference for the termination of a pregnancy.

Here we come to the crux of the question. Can anyone satisfy Brother Ivo's intellectual curiosity and give him a single reason against Female Genital Mutilation that does not carry at least equal force in the case of abortion - noting, of course, that in the latter case it is possible to argue (as he does) that additionally another's life is ended. If we can override the woman's views in one case, why not the other?

Our progressive and feminist friends care passionately for this Act. We ought perhaps to press them to 'use it - or lose it', and along the way scrutinise their defence with greater care than was deployed when the matter first came before Parliament.

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

95 Comments:

Blogger seanrobsville said...

Being a member of a certain 'faith community' ensures immunity from most of the laws of the land. Ask the kuffar girls who tried to complain about rape by the favoured ones. Neither police nor social workers will risk harming community cohesion for the sake of a few insignificant brats.

17 May 2013 at 08:40  
Blogger DAD said...

Brother Ivo, you write,

"He has no more liking for adults undergoing the procedure, for when God created Eve he saw that she too was good. It is the sin of human pride to think oneself capable and entitled to improve on the Lord's design"

Why then does God demand circumcision for Jewish men?

17 May 2013 at 11:32  
Blogger The Explorer said...

By the tenets of multiculturism (at least in its pure form), why prosecute? If all cultures are equal in all respects,what gives one culture the right to tell another culture what to do?

Liberal democracies allow individuals a lot of freedom provided there is no harm to others, but if everything's a matter of opinion then that opinion is itself arbitrary. A Nazi or a suicide bomber could disagree about not harrming others. If you say they're wrong: we;;, that's just your opinion.

As Nietzsche argued, if (or since) there's no God, then right and wrong are deterrmined by success in war. I sometimes think that his insanity was probably caused less by his syphilis than by his courage in confronting the implications of his opinions.

If God exists, of course, then other options become possible.

17 May 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Ivo, you silly chap. FGM is a racial issue, and thus the police quietly leave the room and gently close the door behind them. You see, the problem is when we allowed the {AHEM}, ‘less achieving’ races into the country, we singularly failed to tell them that their presence here was only acceptable if they were prepared to live under British law. A similar situation happened with the Pakistanis. How many years went by while their radical preachers were calling for jihad in the mosques over here. Did it not take a concerted public effort to change things ?

Of course, if we had done that, tell these types where to get off, we could remove them back to their original country if they mess up. Back to the land where they belong and where they could cut off what they like from each other for all this man cares. After all, they tend to be nothing but a drain on their host country, are they not ? A good example of that is the extra police resources that will be needed to stamp FGM out. And let us not forget Muti, the African witchcraft practice that is alive and well in this country, where at it’s most disgusting, preparations are made from the genitals of dead 10 year old virgin boys that will, so they say, cure anything.

Now, readers of this submission might consider the Inspector an uncaring brute. But he does care. It’s just that it’s not worth losing any sleep over the ingrained behaviour of certain races, when what is needed to stop them is the threat of deportation of the perpetrators. Until that is on the table, it is so much finger wagging at them as far as they are concerned…





17 May 2013 at 14:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Ivo. Do share in a bit of investigation the Inspector has done on the so called ‘Transgendered’ community.

The people supposedly trapped in the body of the wrong sex. Utter tosh !

The syndrome is caused by extreme homosexual inclination. The sufferer is so drawn to members of the same sex, they delude themselves in believing the smartest way of achieving their dream pairing is to present themselves as members of the opposite sex. So, it’s nothing more prosaic than being gay and being mad at the same time. But when the Inspector was posting on Pink News and published his findings on the subject, he was told he didn’t know what he was on about. Don’t you just love it when someone tells you that !

Just to prove the transgendered are entirely sex driven delusionals, in many parts of the world, they can have a tragically short lifespan. Post op, the young ones go into prostitution or become serial daters of men. They tend to withhold their true origin, and that puts them in a rather precarious situation. You see, it’s quite understandable that when a man discovers the hideous truth, he may well fly off the handle. As a result, they endure more than their share of being murdered. Often, the deed takes place in a secluded area, no doubt originally chosen for love-making, when the truth ‘slips’out. At any one time, there are probably a few hundred bodies on this earth, waiting to be discovered, this man would wager. Some of the victims had even been ‘engaged’ to their killer !

Postscript. It just so happens that Pink News is doing a feature on Anna Grodzka today. Poland and the world’s only trans MP, accompanied by a picture of an ugly man wearing a dress. One notes the radical surgery is now referred to as ‘Gender Confirmation’{GULP!}. It’s a mad, mad world out there…



17 May 2013 at 14:34  
Blogger David B said...

Genital mutilation of minors is an abomination, though adults I suppose should be allowed to have it if they want, though, except in rare cases where the psychological well being is at stake, then they should have to pay for it themselves IMV.

The answer to Bro Ivo's intellectual curiosity is that no-one is suggesting abortion years after the birth of a child, as happens in genital mutilation.

It is a question of when it is reasonable to consider that a developing bundle of cells has sufficient personhood to be considered to have rights stronger than those of a woman's right to choose.

David

17 May 2013 at 16:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "[...] but disfigurement of those who do not and cannot lawfully consent is never acceptable under any circumstances, ever."

Blimey.

17 May 2013 at 16:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "When we turn to the 'Transgendered community', we have no such squeamishness. Our NHS pays for similar surgery - even, occasionally, for serving prisoners - and the philosophical underpinning appears to be that such re-configuring is not only to be 'celebrated' as a form of 'liberation', despite the considerable mutilation involved, but the passing of adverse comment risks the commentator being accused or even prosecuted for 'hate speech'."

I know (through social media) two people who have transgendered and I've heard their stories. I don't really understand their situation and where it stands in terms of psychology but I've got considerable sympathy for them. They seem to have gone through hell beforehand, and hell throughout the preparation and procedure, and it's not that great afterwards dealing with the reactions of some people to it either. What I know is that there is nothing frivolous, or trendy or sexual revolution-ish in it at all.

17 May 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I also used to work with a bloke too who went through the procedure. No-one at work had a clue what he was going through, including his drinking friend. He handed in his notice as "Mike", took 3 months off, and apparently turned up as a pre-op woman "Anne-Marie" at his next company. Looking back, I can see it now but not at the time.

17 May 2013 at 17:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

no-one is suggesting abortion years after the birth of a child...

Well, first let's get the word correct. The correct word is 'kill.' You can't abort someone years after birth, but you can kill them. Abortion after all is just a convenient euphemism for 'killing.' That "developing bundle of cells" is a living organism. Abortion kills that "developing bundle of cells." There is no biological doubt about this. You can assert that it doesn't matter because the "developing bundle of cells" isn't a person under the law. Let's not hide the reality of what is going on.

Now your assertion while technically true is not complete. There are people - "ethicists" they call themselves - who assert that parents should have the right to kill their newly born children for some period of time after birth. And their arguments borrow heavily from the justification for abortion. This should not surprise since the boundary of birth is wholly arbitrary. That boundary can easily be extended beyond birth to cover the dispatch of children with unwanted disability. The "wrongful birth" lawsuits clearly illustrate this concept. Parents are presented with obligations they would have avoided through abortion if only they had known. So they sue for "wrongful birth." It would be much easier to simply dispatch the child after birth by denying its personhood.

The more interesting question however is not broached in Brother Ivo's article. Since we are dealing with a "developing bundle of cells" that does not "possess sufficient personhood" to be protected from being killed, could we develop an in utero method of clitoridectomy? Certainly there would be doctors willing to perform the procedure. If it avoided the law, there would be customers for it. And one would struggle to understand how a child could be protected from genital mutilation but not death. (Abortion is a rather extreme form of GM in some cases, don't you think?) It's not a person after all. It is a bundle of cells that exists only at the good pleasure of its biological provider. It is a virtual parasite according to some feminists. What rights a parasite?

The answer of course will be "No" but not because the "developing bundle of cells" has "sufficient personhood" to warrant protection. Such a procedure would devalue the lives of women. It's similar to 'polically incorrect' abortions. Aborting to avoid stretch marks is acceptable. Aborting a child because it is female is unacceptable. Aborting a disabled child is acceptable. Aborting a child thought gay is unacceptable. The difference is found in the political power of the affected group.

Yes, this "choice" stuff. It can get complicated.

carl

17 May 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother David,

Thank you for attempting an answer but I do not think you succeed.

If we allow adults autonomy in all other areas why not here?

Furthermore, can you not see that every pro-abortion argument applies to a consenting adult with this
"procedure". In abortion there may or may not be another party's interest: much as disapproved, Brother Ivo struggles to see how the pro arguments for abortion do not apply equally to FGM

17 May 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Carl,

You have indeed taken the argument into a new area-for which thanks. It poses the same set of challenges to the status quo, and we need to start people thinking afresh.

My piece is intended to provoke thinking: you have advanced the idea lets see if our opponents have any satisfactory answers.

17 May 2013 at 18:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In principle, if a woman wants to mutilate herself in this way then that's nominally up to her. Perhaps if the law wasn't there then there may be some doctors willing to cause harm like that for cultural or religious reasons. However, one might wonder whether the women are really free to make the decision, especially given the position of women in the cultures that tend to practice it. I guess that's why the law is there.

17 May 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I notice the justifications for intervention are set out here:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf

and they do indeed relate to gender inequalities. Of course, gender equality is bound up in liberal ideology and that has core assumptions about the human conditon, which may be wrong. It may be that the way women have been socialised into gender inequality throughout history in most cultures, one might call this "traditional" to give it some gravitas and authority, is a better way of organising ourselves. Or should that be "organising ourselves, and our women"?

17 May 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger michael north said...


carl jacobs @ 18.29

The idea of in utero clitoridectomy is something that Philip K Dick might have written about, though I doubt whether Steven Spielberg would have chosen to turn the story into a film.

He wrote a story in the 1970s about an eleven-year-old boy waiting to be picked up by the medical service, as his right to live didn't begin till he turned twelve. Until then , he was on probation, at the whim of his parents. The feminists were apoplectic, of course.

To talk about "personhood" and similar abstractions when talking about humanity and the rights that are supposed to flow from it is to play into the hands of those who promote what CSLewis called the "abolition of man". Obama is full of that sort of crap.

Humanity is not a philosophical or social concept; it is a matter of hard science. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens, and can be identified as such by his or her DNA. Whether humanity has any value is another matter, but those who dismiss the claims of the pre-born cannot legitimately invoke the human rights of the already-born. What is sauce for the goose...

17 May 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Humanity is not a philosophical or social concept; it is a matter of hard science. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens, and can be identified as such by his or her DNA."

My foreskin, which I'm lucky enough to retain, has human DNA but is not person. A dead body has human DNA but is no longer a person like the rest of us. Arguably, a foetus with anencephaly is not a person like the rest of us. Hence, the DNA thing is insufficient.

17 May 2013 at 19:41  
Blogger michael north said...


Dan Jo @ 19.41

Your foreskin is genetically identical with the rest of you. A foetus is genetically distinct from its "host". It is also capable, in the right circumstances, of development; your foreskin will never be anything more.

17 May 2013 at 20:16  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother DanJo

The objection to FGM I based upon the potential for abuse of male power and influence is actually no different from the potential for abusive men to press for abortion to escape responsibility for a child.

17 May 2013 at 20:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Michael: "It is also capable, in the right circumstances, of development"

But it's not a person like I am, as you seem to acknowledge there.

17 May 2013 at 21:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ivo: "The objection to FGM I based upon the potential for abuse of male power and influence is actually no different from the potential for abusive men to press for abortion to escape responsibility for a child."

Oh I think it is. Our society and culture tends to protect women from that these days. Women who have genital mutilations are almost all products of their sub-culture, and it's the sub-culture rather than individuals which is sustaining the practice.

17 May 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger Peter D said...

Female genital mutilation may be sustained by sub-cultures - and women in those cultures may wish to continue the practice - but individuals in Britain are held accountable for their actions and it is a crime here.

This practice is dangerous to a child's immediate health and carries life long medical consequences and risks.

The law must be enforced and it is an outrage if health, social services and the police are turning a 'blind eye' in the name of some misguided trans-cultural ideology.

We concede too much to evil in the name of compassion and in doing so reinforce other so called 'sub-cultures' and assign them 'rights' based on this. Homosexuality is a case in point. So too drug abusers. Its the same with those choosing a life on benefit. And we wont even mention the greatest crime of all, abortion.

We confuse seeking to understand with acceptance of the unacceptable. Christians need to stand against the liberal and modern approach to unacceptable behaviour.

DanJ0 said: "My foreskin, which I'm lucky enough to retain, has human DNA but is not person." One is mightily relieved to hear you understand this! Now you realise this you must stop giving it a name playing with it! Of course, this was a not so subtle attempt to equate FGM with circumcision and repoen that debate.

An atheist he will never accept the right to life in the womb. He'll also probably support the right of a person to have assisted murder should they grow tired with their life. Suicide, after all, is not a criminal offence. We get caught up in an unnecessarily complicated moral maze when we abandon the simple concept that our lifes and the lifes of others are not ours to decide what do with.

18 May 2013 at 01:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Are you a ‘sub culturist’ by any chance ? Because the Inspector appreciates the differences between the races, he’s been called a racist on this site. But a ‘sub culturist’, no. No one is ever accused of that. And yet it’s the same thing, but wrapped up in smiley facey paper, is it not ?

18 May 2013 at 01:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I can't think of any reason if we can override the woman's and the cultural thinking in the case of FGM then I think we should be able to override the woman's and the cultural thinking in the case of late term abortions (those over 20 wks) She should by law have to carry to full term and give up for adoption thereby circumventing any oppressive power of the male. I say late term abortions because we are talking survival outside of the host body.

18 May 2013 at 01:41  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

I recognise that a nation is made up of different individuals who form into groupings with a collective identity which may or may not be in tune with the valuse of the wider society.

"Racism" rests on the idea that the DNA and genetic of some people is somehow inferior to others and this is what causes them to behave differently. It isn't, of course, as we are all one race and share a common humanity being made in the image of God.

"Ethnicity" recognises different groups have different values, ways of living and standards. The liberal will be reluctant to 'judge' these as being superior or inferior - they're just "different" to him.

Nowadays, I'd say Christians are becoming a sub-culture within an increasingly secular, atheist society. Homosexuals are a minority sub-culture within a majority heterosexual culture.

Now do you see? If you are just dismissive of difference, simply because of difference, without a rational argument, then call it what you want, it is discriminatory.

18 May 2013 at 01:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "An atheist he will never accept the right to life in the womb."

That doesn't necessarily follow.

"We get caught up in an unnecessarily complicated moral maze when we abandon the simple concept that our lifes and the lifes of others are not ours to decide what do with."

You merely assert that our lives are not our own when in reality it is more natural to assume they are. The belief system used by some to define the human condition is what is unnecessarily complicated.

18 May 2013 at 04:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Homosexuals are a minority sub-culture within a majority heterosexual culture."

That's like saying ginger-haired or left-handed people are minority sub-cultures.

18 May 2013 at 06:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "One is mightily relieved to hear you understand this! Now you realise this you must stop giving it a name playing with it!"

Says the weirdo who thinks one off the wrist is evil.

"Of course, this was a not so subtle attempt to equate FGM with circumcision and repoen that debate."

I don't think female genital mutilation and circumcision are equivalent at all. Moreover, the debate you are referring to was about child circumcision purely for religious reasons But don't let that stop you doing your Dodo thing again.

18 May 2013 at 06:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "Not only does a 'procedure' with no health benefits plainly constitute 'significant harm' within the terms of the 1987 Status of Children Act, but disfigurement of those who do not and cannot lawfully consent is never acceptable under any circumstances, ever."

I'm happy enough with my argument set out in that earlier thread so I have no need to revisit it for myself. I'm not aware that the Act referred to there is an Act of our Parliament anyway but it seems Brother Ivo comes from the same direction as me on that thread given the latter part. I suppose it might turn on whether circumcision without medical reason is a disfigurement or not.

18 May 2013 at 06:47  
Blogger The Explorer said...

The whole multicultural enterprise seems to have arisen in a laudable reaction to two world wars. You can see the seeds of it in a book like Dance's 'History the Betrayer'. Nationalism causes war; so destroy nationalism by destroying the nation.

What does not seem to have occurred is that conflict might then arise WITHIN the new multicultural space. The issue cited by Brother Ivo is an example of the law of unintended consequences.

18 May 2013 at 10:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Their all muslims of course.

18 May 2013 at 11:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...


And if you want to know the lie that Islam is watch the Channel 4 banned film by Tom Holland the acclaimed historian which shows what a black hole Islam is.

Islam not what we are led to believe.

In August 2012, Tom Holland produced a programme for Channel 4 entitled Islam: The Untold Story. Contributors included Professor Patricia Crone. The programme generated a response from British Muslims, with more than 1000 complaints received by Ofcom and Channel 4. As a result Channel 4 pulled the screening.

A planned screening of Islam: The Untold Story before an audience of historians was also cancelled, due to security concerns raised from death threats received by Holland as a result of the documentary.

Islam: The Untold Story - In this ground-breaking film historian Tom Holland explores how a new religion in 630 AD - Islam - emerged from the seedbed of the ancient world and asks what we really know for certain about and its rise.

The result is an extraordinary detective story.

TraditionallyMuslims and non-Muslims alike have believed that Islam was born in the full light of history. But a large number of historians now doubt that presumption and question much of what Muslim tradition has to tell us about Mohammed and the so called birth of Islam.

To watch this interesting film go to

http://vimeo.com/49439561

18 May 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger David B said...

Naomi, I think you are right to doubt the presumptions behind Muslim tradition, but please do not forget that there is also a school of thought which claims that Jesus was a myth.

I am, as a matter of fact, not a Jesus mythicist myself, viewing it as more likely that the supernatural tales associated with him grew around a historical man, as supernatural tales grew concerning various Hindu gurus, and Christian saints.

The evidence that many Saints (so-called, anyway) from my neck of the woods did actually exist seems to me compelling - apparently letters written by some exist - but actually I have never found reports of any compelling evidence of that nature for the historicity of St David, though there are many supernatural stories associated with the name, which not even the Church take seriously.

But is the evidence for either the historicity of Christ or St David, leave alone the supernatural tales associated with them, compelling?

I tend to the view that Mohammed. Jesus and St David were all based on historical figures, or perhaps an amalgum of a couple or a few historical figures, but the evidence is not compelling, in the way that the evidence for both the existence and the known fraudulent activities of Joseph Smith is compelling.

David

18 May 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. "Ethnicity" recognises different groups have different values, ways of living and standards. The liberal will be reluctant to 'judge' these as being superior or inferior - they're just "different" to him.

Oh dear, that man. We can conclude from that then that FGM is just a different way of doing things, thanks to glorious ethnicity. We are not entitled to say that the western idea of leaving the genitals of young girls alone is a superior and desired outcome.

One would say Racism is nothing to do with DNA per se, and everything to do with standards of behaviour common to a group of people that share common DNA. And standards of behaviour are the most judgmental you can get. But YOU can’t say that, because you are walking on the egg shells of perceived righteousness, to wit, we are as God made us. Sweep them aside, and just say it, “I am superior to the man who expects a tin can lid to be taken to his young daughter’s genitals”


18 May 2013 at 14:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. To be a minority sub-culture, there first has to be a common desire to leave the whole, or at the very least, to declare your differences from the whole. Not even you can deny that organised homosexuality via the internet has achieved this in spades. Whereas, this left handed man has absolutely no intention of broadcasting his angst that he lives in a right handed world. Whatever a right handed world might be...


18 May 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Naomi (11:33)

Further to your comment, and mine.

Do you remember when John Reid, while Home Secretary, was told that the space into which he had intruded belonged to Allah?

One wonders how far the architects of our brave new world (the 'community of communities') actually thought through the implications of what they were doing.

18 May 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Whereas, this left handed man has absolutely no intention of broadcasting his angst that he lives in a right handed world. Whatever a right handed world might be..."

You live in the modern Western world, Inspector. Left-handedness used to be suppressed in schools, you know. Even my older brother was discouraged at first. Also, left-handed people were often viewed with suspicion. It was sometimes associated with degeneracy too. Finally, left-handed people tend to die younger for some reason.

But anyway, the point I was making earlier was that homosexuals aren't part of a sub-culture. It's a natural phenomenon. Some homosexuals may join a sub-culture like the Gay Scene in places like Brighton but I daresay most don't. It's just sexual orientation at the end of the day.

18 May 2013 at 15:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. If you are trying to convince the Inspector that homosexuals are not their own sub culture, you are going to have to do better than that. Where are the high profile homosexuals who disapprove of what the group demands ? (....Demands, demands – Christ almighty, don’t we get demand after demand...).

Well, where are they ? And if they do emerge, what say you of the level of vitriol and derision they will receive from the group ?

18 May 2013 at 16:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo

There was a book a while back called 'A Natural History of Rape'. (R Thornhill).

It argued that rape is natural since it occurs in nature and can be explained in biological terms: the imperative to reproduce and pass on one's genes.

Rape as a sexual orientation. What's your take on that: given that, in evolutionary terms, 'right' is whatever enables survival (genes, in this case)?

Not a trick question. I'd be interested in a non-religious evaluation Thornhill's basic argument.

18 May 2013 at 16:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Homosexuality is on the whole a sub-culture because what they do is different and always will be and I don't mean just those who are part of the scene. Their way of life is different.

18 May 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
@ 18 May 2013 14:00

Do read my post again, sir.

I concluded with: "If you are just dismissive of difference, simply because of difference, without a rational argument, then call it what you want, it is discriminatory."

Of course genital mutilation is wrong! There are many rational and moral objections to it. That's why its a criminal offence.

Similarly, I hold there are a series of arguments, both moral and in terms of 'harm' to self and others, to be made opposing the cultural normalising and acceptance of this. However, there is few arguments that can be made against items of clothing that signify your identification woith or allegiance to a particular group e.g. the Scottish kilt.

So FGM is a different way of doing things but it is also, from our perspective, a harmful practice that must be ended.

18 May 2013 at 17:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Don’t get the Inspector wrong old fellow. He sees what you are doing. Your apparent sitting on the fence appreciating the form is a rather cunningly disguised hideout where you can pounce and discriminate ‘justly’ if that is the word, and put an end to FGM. Well done that man, and you managed to do it without using the nasty word ‘Race’. Deep admiration !

The Inspector is a little more {AHEM}, brutal in his approach. To wit, “If you mutilate any of your women, you’ll be back to your stone age country in hours. We don’t want the likes of you coming over here and bringing your primitive rites with you”.

18 May 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Homosexuality is on the whole a sub-culture because what they do is different and always will be and I don't mean just those who are part of the scene. Their way of life is different."

Sort of like wheelchair users being part of a subculture because they can't walk like the rest of us? Or blind people because they can't see like the rest of us and might be inclined to (say0 use guide dogs?

18 May 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "It argued that rape is natural since it occurs in nature and can be explained in biological terms: the imperative to reproduce and pass on one's genes."

You want to use a form of the naturalistic fallacy, I think, to make a reductio ad absurdum style of argument. I'm well aware of the philosophical issues around "natural" and "nature". I throw the word around here deliberately since I get said to me regularly that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore bad.

"Rape as a sexual orientation. What's your take on that: given that, in evolutionary terms, 'right' is whatever enables survival (genes, in this case)?"

I tend to view rape as being about control and power rather than sexual appetite, or about behaving according to our underlying biological instincts. It may well be that some people are more predisposed to it than others, either genetically or through their upbringing, but we're not merely animals (another word which I'm well aware of the artificial division often constructed). Rape clearly does significant harm and by definition lacks consent of one party in the act. Moreover, it may even produce offspring which is not a Good Thing. I have no trouble condemning it and I think I have the conceptual tools to do so.

18 May 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Incidentally, I get the notion of something being 'ordered' or intended in religious thinking. Obviously as an atheist I don't agree and so words like 'natural' are contested things.

18 May 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


There’s a thing DanJ0. Considering homosexuality as a form of disability. Yes, one does believe you have something there ! It works on so many levels, don’t you find. So, as cripples are unable to take part in the hundred metres dash, so they have their wheelchair races, just for them. Their CP, if you will...


18 May 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo

Good answer! And, as I said, it wasn't intended as a trick question. I was genuinely interested in your response.

I agree that 'Nature' and 'Natural' are difficult terms. They're difficult also from a Christian perspective: how can anything that occurs naturally be bad if God created Nature? Thus Tennyson asks, "Are God and Nature then at strife?" and finds the tension a real problem. And Huysmans' 'Against Nature': Christianity is unnatural.

It only makes sense for me if Nature and human nature are alike 'fallen', not now as they were intended to be, and both destined for eventual restoration. I find it significant that Christ said there would be no marriage in Heaven: it is a temporary, this-worldly thing.

In any case, thank you for your considered response.

Cordially.

18 May 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Breaking news!

The fit able bodied athlete who was barred from competing in the wheel chair Olympics has taken his appeal to the Minister of Sport AND informed the minister that he is gay. “This changes everything” gushed the minister. “Of course he should be allowed to compete. The wheelchair Olympics is for everybody, and it is the right and proper thing to do to allow fit abled bodied gay athletes to take part”.

When the minister was informed this would be against the rules, the minister replied “I am certain the PM will allow parliamentary time to sneak through some botched legislation that will have loose ends hanging all over the place, and probably end up enshrining in law that black is the new white. We Conservatives are not monsters you know !”


18 May 2013 at 20:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Have you considered entering this year's BGT Inspector?

18 May 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
I agree the blind and the disabled make up sub-cultures too and they can belong to the gay sub-culture as well.

18 May 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Because the disabled and the blind cannot survive alone the state has legislated to help them with the various legal protections they are given and in the same way the state has legislated to help homosexuals with the Civil Partnership. Just like a disabled person cannot do what an able bodied person can so can a homosexual not do what a heterosexual can.
Nobody is any less of a human being here all eat, sleep and excrete, but they have other needs that are variant to the mainstream of humanity.

The answer is if a homosexual wants to get married then he/she has to become bi-sexual and marry one of the opposite sex and consummate the union.

18 May 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


News at 10.

The man who successfully campaigned for fit able bodied gay athletes to compete alongside wheelchair racers has denied he is in favour of SSM. Interviewed straight after his 3rd wheelchair race victory out of 3, he said the idea of two people of the same sex marrying each other is an absolutely stupid one foisted on society by cultural Marxists who wish to destroy the concept of stable family life in the UK. He further said that gay people who are unhappy will continue to be unhappy if ever such a measure was passed. Gay people are just unhappy. Live with it, he said.

Tomorrow, he is to take part in his 4th wheelchair race. He is the clear favourite to win it...

18 May 2013 at 22:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


News update.

It is expected to be announced shortly that the PM will not allow anymore legislation to be passed by Parliament unless it contains an obvious and tangible benefit for gay people. When asked why gay people, and not, say, gypsies, the PM said he had no idea, but that it was the right and proper thing to do. Probably.

18 May 2013 at 22:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


From the Inspector’s diary...

It’s been rumoured the draft of the SSM bill contains a serious error. Unless it’s corrected, and pretty damn quickly, the result if passed into law is that ONLY same sex couples can get married in future. No one else. Of course, the public spirited Inspector telephoned a high profile gay ‘charity’ informing them of such. Their reply was somewhat disappointing...

“Look, you hateful homophobic bigot, we want what you have, but we don’t care a stuff if it’s denied to you in the future as it was to us for thousands of years”

When the Inspector pointed out that he did not hate anybody as he is a Christian, a terrible shriek was audible from the earpiece at two feet, and he quickly replaced the handset, more in relief than satisfaction.

I say, it comes to something when a fellow can’t even have a civilised discussion over the telegraph, what !

18 May 2013 at 23:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
@ 18 May 2013 18:29

No cunning disguise by me. Nowadays, we have to use reason and evidence to demonstrate that the practices of certain groups are harmful to individuals or to society at large. I believe God's wisdom for us and His will for the way we live can be evidenced and rationally advanced.

Take homosexually, Christians could just say it is immoral (which it is), or they can present evidence that it is harnmful for individuals and for society at large (which it is). There should be no difficulty in demonstrating why God's wisdom and His will for us is consistent with our wellbeing.

FGM is practiced for a range of reasons by sub-cultures within Britain. Not because those people are from different 'races' who are inherrently 'inferior' but because they attach important cultural meaning to the practice - religious, aesthetic, relational and health. Yes, I agree, certain sub-cultures are not just different but are inferior too as judged by our standards.

We can demonstrate FGM is harmful medically and does not enhance fertility; so too that its brutality is unnecessary for aethetics. Perhaps the most difficult aspect is that of relationships between men and women and the role of sexual fidelity and sexual pleasure in marriage. Women do not need their clitoris to be removed or their vagina stitched to remain faithful!

Be in no doubt of my view that FGM is an abhorrant practice and has no place in a civilised society. To eradicate in Britain means using the law as well as education - changing attitudes as well as policing acts.

19 May 2013 at 00:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

.... Inspector, but surely our homosexual athlete will want to be able to 'marry' his wheelchair at some point? Same sex marriage will advance his cause. He needs to rethink.

19 May 2013 at 00:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Good show Peter D, a rather elegant discourse from you.

Of course, you do realise that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the celebrants of FGM in the UK are as thick as sh_t, and don’t speak English, so ‘education’ is out of the question. Thank God for the rifle butt, what ! (Naughty Inspector - FGM certainly brings out the worst in you, doesn’t it...)


19 May 2013 at 00:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You really must define "as thick as sh_t", you know. Are you claiming the average intelligence of different "races" shows discernible differences?

This is counter to science which shows how the brain is hard-wired in childhood to feel, think and conceptualise in different ways. Attitudes are then constructed and reinforced within a culture. This is why stable parenting, a loving family climate and a supportive community is so important. And, of course, a moral and ethical framework that promotes human development is critical.

To think there was a time when we in the West neared the heights of an educated, scientific and Christian civilisation and now .... we're being dragged down by secular atheism and an abandonment of Christ.

19 May 2013 at 02:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "The answer is if a homosexual wants to get married then he/she has to become bi-sexual and marry one of the opposite sex and consummate the union."

Or, he could continue to assert his rights and, perhaps within a few months, marry someone of the same sex in the UK. It's just a social institution so the requirements can simply be extended to suit. That sounds much easier and more elegant. Perhaps you will be invited to be a bridesmaid in the near future by one of those homosexuals you said you were surrounded by in the past. I love a good wedding myself.

19 May 2013 at 06:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "When the Inspector pointed out that he did not hate anybody as he is a Christian [...]"

I have to point out that, by observation here and other online sites including newspaper comments sections, the more strident a Christian appears, the more he appears to hate others as a general rule of thumb. It's very ironic.

19 May 2013 at 06:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I agree the blind and the disabled make up sub-cultures too and they can belong to the gay sub-culture as well."

How confusing. I knew a woman who had lost her right arm and a former teacher who had a false leg. Just to clarify, are they in the same sub-culture, or are they in separate ones?

19 May 2013 at 07:20  
Blogger David B said...

DanJO 06,58

That is also my experience, too, though it maybe that it is not only others that are hated.

I get the impression that many of the more strident Christians are not too fond of themselves either, or of the human condition.

Some seem to think that taking pleasure in what the senses can bring - experiencing the whole of life's rich pageant, heterosexually as well as homosexually, and including taking pleasure in food and drink, anything not one-pointedly aimed at some sort of union with a godhead, is somehow wrong.

Some seem to need to cause themselves pain, and deprive themselves of pleasure in this aim, including, historically, many of those people mist revered by the more ardent Christians.

What a waste of life! What massive arrogance to think that some universal mind notices or cares about, or approves of them - for instance - scourging themselves.

Self mortification - now that is perversion!

David

19 May 2013 at 07:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter D (19th May 00:09)

Plato's question in 'Euthyphro' - Are things good because the gods commnad them, or do they command them becasue thy're good? - has never gone away.

By the former, the Ten Commandments are simply arbitrary (and ignorant, bigoted etc, etc): murder would become good if God changed his mind.

By the latter, guidance given by the Creator reflects the way we have been constituted. As a mundane analogy: if the engine is designed to run on petrol we are free to put in DERV instead, but should not be surprised if it seizes up.

Your opening paragraph seems to me to be fully in accord with this view.

That Christians from time to time do not follow their own guidance does not mean the guidance itself is at fault. Our failures are fully explicable if we are, indeed, fallen beings: which is why we need the rules in the first place.


19 May 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

Explorer said ...

"Plato's question in 'Euthyphro' - Are things good because the gods commnad them, or do they command them becasue thy're good? - has never gone away."

I'm no philosopher but I think the question unnecessary. As a Christian, I believe God made us to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him - and to become perfected by union with Him through Christ to live with Him for eternity.

All parts of our body, mind and soul have to be attuned to God. Yet we are human, corrupted by the Fall, as is all of nature. So we struggle to realise our God given potential. The 'rules' wouldn't be 'rules' if we lived according to our true, uncorrupted nature. We 'know' how to live happily because God has written this on our hearts, just cannot do it.

So, I'd say God commandments are a reminder of how to live for our own good because He made us a certain way for a certain purpose.

19 May 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter D

Plato did not have access to revelation. Reason was all he had.

Modern pagans do nor have access to revelation either; that is to say, they do not acknowledge it as such.

Therefore, it is necessary to reason with them; and it is possible to do so if/because Christianity is reasonable, not irrational.

That is what I understood you to be saying to the Inspector, and I agreed with it. Apologies if I did not express myself clearly.

19 May 2013 at 13:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 / David B. It must be very disappointing to you both to find that Christians don’t HATE anybody. In fact, hatred of the people is, we find, the essence of totalitarian regimes where Christianity is absent at an influential level. And you don’t have to go back in history either as the world today has dozens of totalitarian states where hatred forms an integral part of the order.

You two types rather praise the efforts of the Christians on this site. So vehemently do we reject your brave new world, that you have no other recourse than to see it as hate.

One can understand DanJ0 in his confusion. He is after all so in the grip of homosexuality that being a member of society comes in only second.

David B on the other hand is just a bitter secularist. A former cult victim. A weak man for allowing himself to be so ensnared. Who gives time to the thoughts of weak men ? Why do weak men think they have a message that must be heard ?

19 May 2013 at 14:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. “You really must define "as thick as sh_t", you know. Are you claiming the average intelligence of different "races" shows discernible differences?”

Yes. It’s all down to IQ. World mean is 100. Some of the African peoples come in at around 70. If your IQ is less than 85, there is no point sending you to college. Because you will never accept anything newer than what you possess through your development to date. If development is the word to use.

With IQs down that low, it probably seems a good idea to mutilate your daughter's sexual opening. After all, your wife’s people would have done it to her. And of course, the lower a fellows IQ, the less empathy he will have for suffering. Not his own of course, but for others around him. If you were to explain to the man it would be better not to do FGM, he would give you the look that Paul Merton is rather famous for.

By the way, the Inspector rates his IQ around 120. Which means he is able to see these people as the primitive savages they are, even if you can’t.




19 May 2013 at 15:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
"Yes. It’s all down to IQ. World mean is 100."

100 is simply the average IQ across a selected population; measuring it accurately across cultures is problematic.

The relationship between race and IQ is a whole field of academic study that is, as yet, inconclusive - so best not jump to hasty judgements lest one thinks you a racist.

19 May 2013 at 16:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ps

Your IQ whilst above average is patently insufficient to allow you to grasp the subtleties in this topic; that or your ingrained prejudice makes you blind. Intelligence is not an indicator of correct thinking, now is it?

19 May 2013 at 16:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One can understand DanJ0 in his confusion. He is after all so in the grip of homosexuality that being a member of society comes in only second."

Is that really how you see it? It's curious because I work as an engineer, live in a community, shop locally, help out with local charities and events, donate to national charities, variously attend evening classes and a local sports centre, own property, vote in elections, and so on. I'm also not part of any Gay Scene and my sexuality offline is just like anyone else's as far as life balance is concerned. Are you sure you have the right man here?

19 May 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You two types rather praise the efforts of the Christians on this site. So vehemently do we reject your brave new world, that you have no other recourse than to see it as hate."

It doesn't take much to see it if your eyes are open. Some of the stuff is really quite vile, and much at odds with the message of love that Christianity likes to put out as its primary message. Perhaps I ought to point out some of it to you as we go along.

19 May 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Brilliant strategy Peter D. If 100 years of research by academia doesn’t fit in with your views, best to dismiss it as ‘inconclusive’.

You really are a one, you know !

PS. Do forgive the Inspector, but you are yourself an intelligent man, although your past behaviour on this site can be construed as ‘not very’, don’t you think ?


19 May 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. And a fine fellow you are. But the life you describe is your life in the closet. You freely admit to that. So, you come onto Cranmer as DanJ0, the real you. You can express of the love that dare not speak it’s name. Keep it up that man, it’s good therapy for you. But in doing so, you can see how others perceive you in the way this man describes.

As for your second post, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that not all Christians wear cardigans and make jam in their spare time. Some Christians are warriors...


19 May 2013 at 16:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "As for your second post, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that not all Christians wear cardigans and make jam in their spare time. Some Christians are warriors..."

Keyboard warriers for the most part, but hey. It makes for bad PR to say the sort of stuff often said here aloud in public. On a related note, I notice that Christian Concern launched a Not Ashamed campaign some time ago. Ha. I suppose Christian Pride was a bit too, well, ...

19 May 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Quite so. It's as I said, behaviour is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence. So far as my own IQ goes, well, let's just say you are lagging some distance behind.

An IQ of 120 is really rather middle of the road. It suggests you have the potential to occupy a middle-management role where your performance would be average. Too bright to be ordinary; yet not bright enough to excel. Bright enough to see a problem; not bright enough to work out creative solutions.

19 May 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D . Well there you go. “Bright enough to see a problem”. Hence this man’s occasional critique of your apparently enlightened take on the world :->

19 May 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wouldn't worry Inspector, Richard Feynman apparently had his measured at 125 in high school and he was a world famous theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner. The average IQ of UK university students must be around 100 these days but most people don't have them formally measured anyway. We have bright graduates coming in at my workplace and they end up designing stuff i.e. proper creative work, as part of their job.

19 May 2013 at 18:38  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
Alas, " ... not bright enough to work out creative solutions."

Best leave that to your intellectual superiors, old chap. Wouldn't want you swimming out of your depth.

[]

19 May 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D . Not altogether sure if you would know what a ‘creative solution’ is, dear fellow. Even if it tapped you on the shoulder, shook hands with you, and introduced itself as a ‘creative solution’...

19 May 2013 at 19:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Now, now, now, Inspector, me thinks your irascibility is surfacing again.

19 May 2013 at 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

heh heh !

19 May 2013 at 20:26  
Blogger Peter D said...

That's much better, my good sir.

See - problem detected and solved; what, what, what!

19 May 2013 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Not quite a ‘creative solution’ but the Inspector does not want you to go empty handed. So how’s this for a sop, “Well done, that man. You did your best and it truly impressed the Inspector”

19 May 2013 at 22:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

You're really too kind, Inspector.

19 May 2013 at 23:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector

On the stupidity or otherwise of cliterodectomy, or whatever it's called, the reasoning seems to go something like this:

The clitoris provides pleasure for the female. The desire for pleasure might induce infidelity. Remove the source of pleasure, and you ensure the fidelity of the female. Inhuman, yes. Stupid, no: at least, not in the sense of being illogical.

The madness or otherwise of Anders B. is another case in point. Thus:

Islamic immigration is wrecking Europe. The source of it in Norway is the Labour Party. Let off a bomb to show you're making a political point, then kill young Labour-party activists to prevent a future increase in the problem. Inhuman, yes.'s a horrible example of jpoined up thinking.

20 May 2013 at 09:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Forgive that incoherent last sentence: the nature of the topic must be getting to me.

It should have read: it's a horrible example of joined-up thinking.

20 May 2013 at 09:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

... and both examples are somewhat creative too, wouldn't you say Inspector?

20 May 2013 at 15:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

No

20 May 2013 at 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Explorer, another reason this man has heard from the primitive humanity that practice FGM is that it makes the girl grow tall and slender, thus ensuring a good marriage. Though personally, one finds a bone through the nose of his wench sexually arousing, whatever her height.

20 May 2013 at 19:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector,

That's a new one on me. Thank you. (The tall and slender bit, I mean).

Mind you, it would still not be stupid unless it were untrue. Does it have that effect in practice, do you know? The killing of sensation is certainly true.

20 May 2013 at 20:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

.... bit like a primitive, backward group believing a four-leafed shamrock brings good luck, what! Or that Leprechauns exist, what, what, what!

20 May 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Explorer, in Gloucester, we are enriched by dumpy black girls, and also tall thin black things. No doubt, the carving up of your daughters ‘mary’ is done more in hope than effectiveness...

20 May 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

... but don't you see InspectorInspector, people with black skin come from a wide variety backgrounds and from diverse ethnic groupings. Just think of the genetic variations across Africa.

Now, the truth.

Did you make that up about height? You see I've never heard of it as a justification before and I've some experience in this field.

21 May 2013 at 01:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter D

Revering the Inspector as I do, for his entertainment value, I am reluctant to agree with you; but in this instance I can only assent: I think he's having us on.

More pressing matters on newer and, I'm sure, future posts by HG.

See you over there.

Over and out.

21 May 2013 at 08:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, this man was watching a documentary about the practice in Africa. The parents of an African girl gave one reason for the practice was to ensure the child would grow tall. Interestingly, despite a wide google, he cannot find any reference to that reason on the net. But the fact remains, the Inspector heard it from the parents, albeit via a translator, and he heard it on televison.

21 May 2013 at 18:32  
Blogger Peter D said...

Yes, Inpector.

22 May 2013 at 00:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older