Posts

CSA&GCSA&G

Vulnerability and Protection: Revisiting Legal Definitions through Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship

/in /by

By Pfarelo Brandy Matsila and Hulisani Khorombi

Introduction

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2021 represents a crucial advancement in South Africa’s legal framework. It designed to provide enhanced protection to individuals who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and violence. This Act plays a critical role in addressing sexual offences, particularly for children, individuals with mental disabilities, and women under the age of 25 who are engaged in higher education or vocational training. It has been instrumental in ensuring that institutions such as educational facilities and workplaces are held accountable for safeguarding these populations.

The Act’s focus on protecting vulnerable groups is both timely and essential in a society where sexual violence remains a pervasive issue. By codifying protections for these groups, the Act acknowledges the importance of safeguarding bodily autonomy and addressing imbalances in power that can lead to exploitation. However, as valuable as the Act is, it is equally important to scrutinize the inclusivity and adequacy of its definitions—particularly the notion of “vulnerable persons.” When examined through the lenses of Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship Theory, significant gaps emerge that call for a broader and more inclusive understanding of vulnerability.

The Importance of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act

The Act’s inclusion of specific protections for children, individuals with mental disabilities, and women under the age of 25 within education and vocational training environments is commendable. These groups have historically faced significant risks of sexual exploitation and harassment. The Act’s recognition of their vulnerability represents a forward-thinking attempt to provide legal safeguards where they are most needed.

Particularly important is the Act’s emphasis on higher education institutions and vocational training settings, where young women are often at risk due to imbalanced power dynamics, exposure to predatory behaviour, and lack of sufficient institutional accountability. These provisions aim to create safer environments for young women to pursue their education and careers without the constant fear of sexual harassment or violence.

Moreover, the Act is a vital step towards addressing the rights of persons with mental disabilities, who often lack the legal and social protections necessary to defend themselves against sexual violence. This inclusion strengthens the legal protections for individuals who are most at risk of exploitation due to their inability to give informed consent.

Critique: Gaps in the Definition of Vulnerability

While the Act makes substantial strides in protecting certain groups, its current definition of “vulnerable persons” is limited in several key areas. These limitations, when viewed through Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship Theory, reveal the ways in which the legal framework overlooks important social and contextual factors that contribute to vulnerability.

1.      Women Under 25 Not in Education or Vocational Training

The Act identifies women under the age of 25 who are in higher education or vocational training as vulnerable, providing them with essential legal protections. However, women under 25 who do not fit into these categories—such as those who are unemployed, working in informal sectors, or in low-wage jobs—are excluded from this definition. This exclusion creates a narrow view of vulnerability that ignores the realities of many young women’s lives.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Sexual citizenship, as described by Richardson (2000), involves the right to bodily autonomy and safety for all individuals, regardless of their institutional or employment status. Vulnerability should not be confined to educational or training environments. Women in precarious or informal work environments, or those who are unemployed, face significant risks of exploitation and harassment. The law’s failure to include these women leaves many vulnerable individuals unprotected.
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality emphasizes how multiple social identities—such as race, class, and gender—interact to create different experiences of oppression. A young woman of colour from an economically disadvantaged background, for example, may face heightened risks of sexual violence despite not being in education or vocational training. Ignoring these intersecting identities perpetuates a system of exclusion, leaving out those who are most in need of legal protection (Crenshaw, 1989).

2.      Infantilization of Women and Exclusion of Men

The Act’s focus on women under 25 reinforces a paternalistic narrative that women need protection solely because of their age. This focus can be seen as infantilizing, reducing women’s vulnerability to a matter of age and failing to recognize that women of all ages face risks of sexual exploitation. Furthermore, the exclusion of men from the definition of vulnerability is problematic, as it reinforces gendered stereotypes that position men as invulnerable to sexual harm.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Sexual citizenship is based on the principle that all individuals, regardless of gender, have the right to bodily autonomy and protection from sexual violence. By excluding men from the definition of vulnerable persons, the Act denies male victims their right to protection. Male survivors of sexual violence, particularly those from marginalized communities such as men of colour or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, are rendered invisible in the legal framework (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality underscores how men, too, can be vulnerable to sexual exploitation, particularly when other factors such as race, class, or disability come into play. For instance, a black man working in precarious labour conditions may experience intersecting forms of oppression that make him more vulnerable to exploitation. The law’s gendered approach to vulnerability fails to account for these intersections, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about masculinity and neglecting the experiences of male survivors (Crenshaw, 1989).

3.      Neglect of Economic and Social Disadvantages

The Act does not account for the ways in which economic disadvantage exacerbates vulnerability. People in precarious working conditions, particularly in informal sectors, are at increased risk of sexual exploitation. Yet, the Act focuses on institutional settings such as schools and training centers, neglecting individuals who are outside these environments but face similar or greater risks.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Economic precarity is a significant factor in creating vulnerability. People who are economically disadvantaged, especially women working in informal sectors or low-wage jobs, often lack the social and legal protections available to those in more formalized settings. Sexual citizenship theory demands that the law recognize and address the vulnerabilities created by economic insecurity (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: The intersection of race, gender, and class compounds vulnerability for many individuals. A woman of colour in an informal labor setting may face exploitation due to both her economic status and her race, with limited recourse to legal protection. Ignoring the role of economic disadvantage in the legal definition of vulnerability disproportionately harms marginalized groups, leaving them without the protections they need (Crenshaw, 1989).

4.      Insufficient Attention to Race and Disability

The Act fails to adequately consider how race and disability interact with gender and age to create distinct forms of vulnerability. Although persons with mental disabilities are included in the definition of vulnerability, there is no explicit mention of individuals with physical or sensory disabilities, nor is there an acknowledgment of how race and ethnicity affect vulnerability to sexual exploitation.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Vulnerability cannot be viewed in isolation from factors like race and disability. People with physical and sensory disabilities, as well as racial minorities, often experience increased vulnerability to sexual harm. Legal protections should reflect the diverse and intersectional nature of vulnerability to ensure that all individuals have the right to bodily autonomy and safety (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality reveals that individuals who are marginalized by both race and disability experience compounded vulnerabilities. For example, a black woman with a physical disability faces distinct risks of exploitation that differ from those faced by women without disabilities or from other racial backgrounds. Failing to address these intersecting identities means that the most vulnerable individuals remain unprotected by the law (Crenshaw, 1989).

Recommendations for a More Inclusive Definition of Vulnerability

To address these gaps, the Act’s definition of vulnerability should be revised to reflect a broader and more intersectional understanding of who is vulnerable to sexual harm. Key recommendations include:

  1. Expand Protections for Women: The law should extend its definition of vulnerability to include women under 25 who are not in education or vocational training, as well as women of all ages in precarious working conditions.
  2. Include Men and Non-Binary Individuals: Legal protections should be extended to men and non-binary individuals, acknowledging that vulnerability to sexual exploitation is not confined to women.
  3. Recognize Economic and Social Disadvantage: Vulnerability should be defined in relation to economic and social factors, particularly for individuals working in informal sectors or facing economic instability.
  4. Address Intersectional Vulnerabilities: The law must explicitly consider the ways in which race, disability, and class intersect to create heightened vulnerabilities for marginalized groups.

Conclusion

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act is a crucial step toward addressing sexual violence and exploitation in South Africa. However, the current definition of vulnerability is too narrow and fails to account for the complex and intersecting factors that shape individuals’ experiences of exploitation. By revisiting the definition of vulnerability through the lenses of Sexual Citizenship Theory and Intersectionality, we can ensure that legal protections are extended to all individuals who are at risk, regardless of their gender, age, or socioeconomic status.

References

Campus Violence statistics. Available at: https://rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 13 of 2021. Available from: https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2021-013.pdf

Lifting the veil on violence against children in South Africa. Available at: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=17023

Richardson, D. (2000). Constructing Sexual Citizenship: Theorizing Sexual Rights. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), 105–135.

Just LeadersCSA&G

Am I eligible to be a refugee?

/in /by

by Hulisani Khorombi 

The United Nations Refugee Agency defines a refugee as someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries[1].

Amnesty international further expands on this and says that there are many reasons why it might be too difficult or dangerous for people to stay in their own countries. For example, children, women and men flee from violence, war, hunger, extreme poverty, because of their sexual or gender orientation, or from the consequences of climate change or other natural disasters. Often people will face a combination of these difficult circumstances[2].

People fleeing persecution and conflict have been granted asylum in foreign lands for thousands of years and this is nothing new.

This is where my predicament starts.

The South African government has declared gender-based violence (GBV) a national crisis. According to a new government report, a woman is murdered every three hours in South Africa, and many are assaulted and raped before their death [3].

President Ramaphosa of South Africa has described GBV in the country as a second pandemic next to Covid-19.

“It is with the heaviest of hearts that I stand before the women and girls of South Africa this evening to talk about another pandemic that is raging in our country—the killing of women and children by the men of our country,[4]”

To summarise this phenomenon we often use the term femicide, which describes the killing of a woman by an intimate partner and the death of a woman as a result of a practice that is harmful to women. Intimate partner is understood as a former or current spouse or partner, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim[5].

Just last year, President Ramaphosa, at an emergency sitting of Parliament said the figures for violence against women and children were similar to those of a country at war[6]. Further describing South Africa as one of “the most unsafe places in world to be a woman”.

Solutions still seem a long way off. In 2018, the National Gender-Based Violence and Femicide Summit, which aimed to highlight the plight of women and girls in the country, was hosted by the government, NGOs, and civil society groups in an effort to find a solution to femicide and GBV in South Africa. The President signed and launched Gender-Based Violence and Femicide Declaration in 2019: the intention is a multi-sectoral structure and national strategy to respond to violence toward women and girls. Activists say the declaration is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done[7]. Yet almost every day we wake up to news that another woman has been raped or murdered.

The heightened reality that women of South Africa are continuously being traumatised was evident to me in two instances. The first being a holiday that I took last year to visit a friend in Tanzania. When she suggested that we go shopping at a local market in the evening my first reaction was a “no” because I would not, under normal circumstances, do that in South Africa. Only after her reassurance of safety did I brave myself for such an outing, which turned out to be harmless.

Second was my solo trip that I took recently for my birthday. I sent my live location to a trusted contact every 8 hours in order to ensure that if something happened the police would know where to possibly start looking for my remains.

Having have thought all of these things through and seeing no end in sight it seems that as a woman I am a refugee of violence in my own country. If a refugee is a person who is forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence, where do I go?

Footnotes

[1] https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/

[3] https://www.voanews.com/africa/south-africa-declares-femicide-national-crisis

[4] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/30/coronavirus-lockdown-femicide-rises-south-africa/

[5] https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1128

[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49739977

[7] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/30/coronavirus-lockdown-femicide-rises-south-africa/

Just LeadersCSA&G

Female Genital Mutilation: sacred cultural practice or human rights violation?

/in /by

By Hulisani Khorombi

Background

The World Health Organisation estimates that 3 million girls, residing in only 30 countries, mainly in Africa, as well as in the Middle East and Asia, are at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM) every year[1].

Historically, an estimated 120 million girls and women have undergone FGM, and approximately 2 million procedures are performed annually on girls under the age of 11[2]. Most commonly performed in Africa, FGM is also practised in parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and in Central and South America. In countries such as Somalia, an estimated 70% to 90% of women have undergone FGM[3].

It is unknown when this practice first developed, but evidence exists that it dates back to the fifth century B.C. preceding Christianity and Islam[4]. In addition to citing religious requirements, proponents of the practice cite several other reasons, one of them being that the procedure aids in preserving cultural identity – just as body piercings, body painting or tattooing are used to identify individuals as members of a particular social group[5].

Regardless of its origins, FGM is practiced as a cultural rite of passage as are virginity testing and male circumcision in some traditional settings. It has been defined as follows.

Female genital mutilation includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women[6].

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and this trend is increasing[7].

FGM has four major forms:[8]

  • Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
  • Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
  • Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
  • Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

There is no record that South Africa has ever practiced FGM and so in this essay there is only a focus on the harm caused by the practice on an international level.

Justifications for FGM

As mentioned above, FGM is not a small or insignificant procedure: it is the removal of all or parts of the clitoris, labia majora and labia minora, sometimes combined with the narrowing of the entrance to the vagina[9].

Apart from denoting belonging in cultural and religious contexts, the removal of external female genitalia has been part of a celebrated ritual in the lives of girls and women as an effective and acceptable method of shaping their attitudes toward sex and sexuality and as a way of ensuring their virginity and suitability for marriage.  This despite a growing international campaign to abolish FGM, endorsed by both the World Medical Association[10] and the World Health Organization[11]..

Some proponents of the practice claim that FGM helps maintain good hygiene in girls and women and promotes good health. For example, some believe that the clitoris is poisonous and can not only harm man during sexual intercourse, but that it can also kill children during the birthing process[12].

Although the medical community is generally divided as to the health benefits that come with the procedure of male circumcision they are agreed on the fact that FGM has no medical benefits whatsoever[13].

Some advocates of FGM believe that the procedure increases the sexual pleasure of the husband and this therefore enriches the marriage. It is believed that the smaller the opening into the vagina the greater the pleasure that the male receives during sexual intercourse[14]. However this is contradicted by evidence that many men experience pain and frustration while attempting to penetrate a tightly circumcised female[15].

Risks

The manner in which the procedures are typically performed contributes greatly to the medical risks that may be encountered. Even under the most sterile of conditions, the procedures can cause serious medical consequences, including death. In many instances the procedure is performed on young girls any time between infancy and puberty. The age varies depending on the reason for the procedure being conducted[16].

For example in Senegal the procedure is viewed as a rite of passage into adulthood for the young woman therefore targeting girls reaching puberty[17]. In other area such as Nigeria and Burkina Faso, the procedure is performed to prevent a new-born child from touching the mother’s clitoris during the birth process.

Regardless of age, the procedure generally is performed by midwives or older village women who perform the cutting without anaesthesia, using instruments such as razor blades, knives, scissors, pieces of glass or sharp stones[18].

Apart from physical complications that are associated with this extreme procedure, there are also extreme psychological effects as well.

Among girls who live in communities where FGM carries social value, the desire to gain social status, please parents and comply with peer pressure is in conflict with fear, trauma and the after effects of the operation[19].

Furthermore, pregnant infibulated women who enter a medical facility for the birthing process typically need to undergo de-infibulation. After the birth many of these women want to be re-infibulated and go through the process of having their wounds re-stitched[20]. This act of performing such a surgery that is medically harmful raises ethical questions about the health professionals who perform it[21].

Responses

In recent years FGM has come under the international spotlight. Various international organisations have continuously advocated against FGM, believing that the medical risks associated with the cutting make them human rights violations and acts of child abuse.

Some authors suggest that FGM should be considered a violation of the right to life from the perspective of reproduction.

When the very organs that allow human beings to reproduce and to give life to future generations are mutilated, there has been a violation of one of the fundamental human rights[22]

In 1959 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child and stated that States party to it should take effective and appropriate measures to abolish traditional practices that are prejudicial to the health of children.

Only much later in 1982 did the United Nations Human Rights Sub commission of the World Health Organisation condemn the practice.

African countries have attempted to curb the practice of FGM but legislative efforts have not been as successful as in European countries. In 1983 Nigeria ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child[23]. This charter contains several articles that can be interpreted to condemn female circumcision.

Apart from international legislative efforts there have been a number of interesting cases dealing with FGM in the United States of America.

Firstly, in 1994 a Nigerian woman by the name of Lydia Oluloro was living illegally in Oregon but asked the courts for political asylum[24]. She feared that her return to her homeland would mean that her two daughters would be forced to undergo the procedure. A federal immigration judge annulled her expulsion order but she was not granted refugee status. The order was merely a mechanism through which her deportation was stayed[25].

The following year two women from Sierra Leone requested political asylum after their genitals had been partly cut off[26]. They claimed that they would be prosecuted in their native land if they opposed the procedure. The woman living in Virginia was granted her request. The judge in that case believed that the woman had suffered an “atrocious form of persecution”[27]. However the second woman living in Maryland was denied her request for political asylum. The judge in her case suggested to the woman that she could “choose to support the practice to maintain tribal unity”[28].

Surprisingly, woman have not been the only ones to seek asylum on the basis of fear of FGM. In the case of Imohi v Immigration and Naturalization Serv[29], Azeez Jimmy Imohi was a male native of Nigeria who sought asylum in the United States on the basis that his home country practiced FGM. He claimed that his return to the country would infringe on his reproductive rights by jeopardizing any female offspring he may have in the future. The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that the application should be denied and it was confirmed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

FGM has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1985. In November of 1993 a medical practitioner was brought before the General Medical Council, charged with performing multiple female circumcisions, knowing the operation to be against the law. He was struck off[30]. Despite this case, 2019 was the first time that there was a successful prosecution in the case of R v N[31] where a woman who mutilated her three-year-old daughter became the first person in the United Kingdom to be found guilty of FGM.

The United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948 adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among the articles included in the Declaration is that of Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” Article 5 reads “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And Article 15 states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself.”

FGM pertains to all of these articles.

Similar articles are included in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, unanimously adopted in 1981 by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Organization of Unity (OAU), coming into force on 21 October 1986.

The articles or portions that are relevant to FGM include Article 4: “Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”; Article 5: “All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited”; Article 16: “Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health . . .”; and finally Article 18: “The State shall ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions”.

Impact

As seen by the above laws and cases, the countries that have effectively enacted preventative methods to abolish practices of FGM are Western. However, for the most part legislation has been ineffective. Laws that prohibit a behaviour that is deeply embedded in a culture are most likely not going to find support amongst the people it aims to protect. This leaves little room for change.

The phrase “female genital mutilation” elicits mixed emotions across the globe in medical communities, as well as in small villages. Yet, despite the apprehension many feel about openly communicating about FGM, communication and education are the keys to eradicating this tradition that plagues millions of women throughout the world. By understanding what FGM is, the historical background behind the practice, and the medical risks associated with such procedures, African countries can follow the lead of the Western countries that have for the most part effectively banned FGM[32].

A comforting thought is that year on year, the conversation surrounding FGM has been amplified. Recently, there has been a ban on FGM in Sudan where it is estimated that 9 in 10 women have undergone the life-changing practice[33] .

Looking into the future

It is important to note that this practice is deeply entrenched in culture and as a result, despite countless laws that may outlaw it, there needs to be more activism on the ground level. There is a necessity for “collective abandonment”, in which an entire community chooses to no longer engage in FGM. This has proven to be an effective way to end the practice. It ensures that no single girl or family will be disadvantaged by the decision[34].

In 2008, UNFPA and UNICEF established the Joint Programme on FGM, the largest global programme to accelerate abandonment of FGM and to provide care for girls and women living with its consequences. To date, the programme has helped more than 3 million girls and women receive FGM-related protection and care services. More than 30 million individuals in over 20,000 communities have made public declarations to abandon the practice[35].

The most common motivation is the strong association with marriageability of a young woman and so there is an expectancy to conform to your community in order to marry[36]. Perhaps the discussion surrounding FGM should then be moved to the social requirement of marriage and the status that it affords women.

In the end abandonment of the practice must be rooted in the communities which practice it.

“The people who practice Female Genital Cutting [FGM] are honourable, upright, moral people who love their children and want the best for them. That is why they practice [FGM] and that is why they will decide to stop practicing it once a way of stopping is found…” (Mackie, 2000: 280)[37]

Footnotes

[1] World Health Organisation https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/ (accessed on 14 May 2020)

[2] Federal Interdepartmental Working Group on Female Genital Mutilation “Female genital mutilation and health care” (1999) Health Canada

[3]   Federal Interdepartmental Working Group on Female Genital Mutilation “Female genital mutilation and health care” (1999) Health Canada

[4] Morgan in “Female Genital Mutilation” (2009) 94 Southern Illinois University School of Law

[5] As above

[6] World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation (accessed on 15 May 2020

[7] As above

[8] As above

[9] Clayman (ed) (1989) The American Association Encyclopaedia of Medicine 282

[10] Richards in “Female genital mutilation condemned by WMA” (1993) 307 BMJ

[11] WHO in “A traditional practice that threatens health — female circumcision” (1986) 33 WHO Chronicle

[12] Etru in “What’s culture got to do with it? Excising the harmful traditional of female circumcision,” (1993) 106 Harv.L.Rev (Belief that the child will die if it touches the clitoris during the birthing process originated in the 15th century in the Bini village of the Bendel state, when it was decreed by a king following ‘consultation with an oracle regarding his wives’ stillbirths and infant deaths’)

[13] Burstyn (1995) 30

[14] Bashir (1996) 427

[15] Bashir (1996) 415 and 427

[16] Morgan (1997) 100

[17] Kopelman (1994) 58

[18] Morgan (1997) 101

[19] Toubia, Female Circumcision as Public Health issue. 331 New England. J. med. 712 (1994)

[20] Above: Morgan

[21] Above: Toubia at 715

[22] Female Circumcision: a critical Appraisal, Alison t slack: human rights quarterly volume 10 number 4 (November 1988) page 31

[23] 20 November 1989

[24] Rev in “Female Genital Mutilation and Refugee Status in the United States, A Step in the Right Direction” (1996) 353 B.C. INT’L & COMPL

[25] As mentioned above

[26] Rev (1996) 354

[27] As mentioned above

[28] Rev (1996) 356

[29] No. 94-70705, 1996 WL 297612 (9TH Circ. June5, 1996)

[30] Hartley in “Female Genital Mutilation: a dilemma in child protection” (1994) 443 Archives of diseases in childhood Bryan Hartley, archives of disease in childhood . 1994: 70: 443

[31] https://perma.cc/6BFR-PX4H

[32] Above: Morgan

[33] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/world/africa/sudan-outlaws-female-genital-mutilation-.html (accessed on 25 May 2020)

[34] https://www.unfpa.org/news/top-5-things-you-didnt-know-about-female-genital-mutilation

[35] https://www.unfpa.org/news/top-5-things-you-didnt-know-about-female-genital-mutilation

[36] https://www.hart-uk.org/blog/fgm-story-worlds-oldest-patriarchy/

[37] https://www.hart-uk.org/blog/fgm-story-worlds-oldest-patriarchy/