LONDON: 2 doctors face FGC charges over consented "designer vagina" ops

the Evening Standard
November 22, 2016

Doctors face prosecution over genital cosmetic surgery in London clinics

by Martin Bentham
Two London doctors face prosection over 'designer vagina' procedure.

Two London doctors are facing prosecution for allegedly carrying out illegal cosmetic surgery on women at clinics in the capital.

The women who had the “designer vagina” procedures were adults who paid for the surgery in the belief that it would make them more attractive.

But Scotland Yard detectives are now carrying out a criminal investigation after being alerted to the cases and deciding that the doctors’ actions involved a potential breach of legislation outlawing female genital mutilation.

Files on both doctors have now been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for charging decisions. A file has also been sent to prosecutors on a third case in Cheshire.

The news will raise hopes that a first conviction under anti-FGM legislation could be secured after the failure last year of the only prosecution so far.

The police investigations will also prompt renewed debate about cosmetic genital surgery, which includes labia reduction and vaginal tightening.

It comes after the pop star Sinitta revealed plans to have her own “vaginoplasty” filmed and broadcast online.

The singer, 53, has already put footage of a friend having a “designer vagina” operation on the Periscope site.

Such procedures — which critics say are wrongly promoted as enhancing sexual pleasure and attractiveness — are carried out widely at clinics in Harley Street and elsewhere.

The Home Office warned two years ago, however, in evidence to Parliament, that the operations may be illegal unless there was a medical or psychological reason for them.

That prompted renewed attention on the issue from police and prosecutors, resulting in the criminal investigation into the two London doctors.

It is understood that in both cases prosecutors believe the evidential test which they apply before bringing charges has been met.

Prosecutors are assessing whether bringing charges is in the public interest. Sources say that since the application of law to “designer vagina” surgery has not been tested in court, government departments are being consulted.

The views of royal medical colleges and anti-FGM campaign groups will also be considered as prosecutors prepare guidance to determine their approach. This is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Decisions over bringing charges will follow.

“So-called designer vagina surgery is classed as FGM when it comes to rules on mandatory reporting,” said a source. “The question [here] is whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.”

There are no official figures on the number of cosmetic genital operations carried out, since many are conducted privately, but doctors believe the surgery is becoming more common.

A study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has blamed the trend on “marketing by the private sector” and images online.

Doctors warn that women are being pressured by “unrealistic representations of vulval appearance in popular culture” and the advertising of the surgery as an “unproblematic lifestyle choice”.

A report by the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology on labia reduction has warned that there is “no scientific evidence” to support the practice and that the health risks, particularly to girls under 18, include infection and a loss of sensitivity.

There are similar concerns about surgery designed to increase the size of the “g-spot” and tighten the vagina.

Campaign groups against FGM have complained that a “double standard” is applied under which ethnic minority communities, which have traditionally practised mutilation, are being targeted by law enforcers while identical surgery carried out on white women for cosmetic reasons is tolerated.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee raised the same concern in a 2014 report and asked Theresa May, then the home secretary, to consider whether legislation was needed to close this potential “loophole”. Mrs May replied that the 2003 Female Genital Mutilation Act covered cosmetic surgery.

In a submission to Parliament, she added: “The 2003 Act does not contain any exemption for cosmetic surgery. If a procedure ... is unnecessary for physical or mental health ... then it is an offence  [making MGC an offence]... it would be for a court to decide if cosmetic surgery constitutes mutilation and is therefore illegal.”

The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it was assessing three files on suspected FGM offences, but declined to comment further.

The Met also declined to comment.
[No mention of the elephant in the room, informed consent.]

NOTTINGHAM: Mother furious at baby cut without her consent

Daily Mail (UK)
August 2, 2015

Mother's fury after doctor circumcises three-month-old baby boy at request of Muslim father WITHOUT her consent

by Ross Slater
Father asked for his boy to stay the night and secretly took him to doctor
Dr Balvinder Mehat carried out the private procedure on request
Baby's mother said: 'I knew this was something my baby's father wanted, but I didn't agree with it at all'
 
A doctor faces a police inquiry after he performed a circumcision on a three-month-old baby without the mother's consent in Nottingham.

Dr Balvinder Mehat was asked by the child's father's family to carry out the private procedure in accordance with their Islamic faith, but the boy's mother was horrified when she found out.

The unmarried 26-year-old, who did not want to be named, said: 'I knew this was something my baby's father wanted, but I didn't agree with it at all.

'I spoke to my health worker and GP about it, and they said that if it was only my name on the birth certificate there was no way it could happen.'

The parents, who both live in Nottingham, were in a casual relationship when the baby was conceived. After the birth, the father visited his son every week.

When the boy was three months old, the father, whose family originate from Pakistan, asked if his son could stay the night to mark Eid, the end of Ramadan. 'I agreed because it seemed fair,' said the boy's mother.

'The next day I was woken up by a phone call from his grandmother asking me for his GP's details for the circumcision appointment.

'I didn't know what she was on about and gave them to her to avoid a row. I then started ringing and texting them to say that no way should they do anything to my son. I got no response. Then a couple of hours later I got a text saying, 'It's done.' I couldn't believe it.'

The child had been taken to the Bakersfield Medical Centre in Nottingham and given a 'Plastibell circumcision', which is a ten-minute surgical procedure. The mother was horrified by the sight of the wound when she went to collect her child.

She was given a post-operative care sheet warning her that 'common complications can be bleeding and infection'. The furious mother told her health visitor, who in turn informed social services.

'A social worker came to see me,' said the mother, 'but she was only interested in my emotional state and in arranging contact for the father's family as I wouldn't allow them access.

'I rang the medical centre and Dr Mehat later rang me back. He was very aggressive.'

According to General Medical Council guidance, doctors should 'get consent from all those with parental responsibility.

If you cannot get consent for a procedure, for example because the parents cannot agree, you should inform the child's parents that you cannot provide the service unless you have authorisation from the court'.

Dr Mehat qualified as a medic in 1984 and became a GP in 2006. When contacted by The Mail on Sunday, he issued a statement through the Medical Protection Society, saying:
'I am sorry to hear of the concerns that have been raised, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further due to patient confidentiality. I would like to reassure my patients that I always strive to provide the best possible care.'

A spokesman for Nottingham Police said: 'We can confirm that the matter has been reported to us and that inquiries are ongoing.'

LONDON: Doctor charged with cutting woman after childbirth

BBC
January  19, 205

Doctor 'performed FGM on new mother in hospital'

A British doctor performed female genital mutilation on a young mother after she gave birth in hospital, a court has heard.

Dhanuson Dharmasena, 32, is accused of carrying out the illegal procedure at the Whittington Hospital in north London.

The doctor, of Ilford, London, denies the charge in what is the first prosecution of its kind in the UK.
A second man, Hasan Mohamed, 41, denies encouraging and abetting the offence.
...
Carrying out female genital mutilation carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

'Encouragement' The mother-of-two, who cannot be identified, first underwent FGM aged six in Somalia, London's Southwark Crown Court heard.

She was 24 and living in Britain when she give birth to her first child in November 2012.

The court heard that during labour, her FGM stitches were torn and Dr Dharmasena, a junior registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology, sewed her back up in a procedure that amounted to FGM.

The prosecution alleges the doctor did so at Mr Mohamed's "insistence or encouragement".

Kate Bex, prosecuting, told jurors that FGM was "very dangerous for a woman's health and psychological well-being"....

"It increases the risk of death in childbirth to both mother and baby."

Jurors heard the woman would have been most exposed to these side-effects when the surgery was first performed when she was six.

Dr Dharmasena's stitches would not have carried the same risks, but should not have been sewn at all "unless medically necessary", Ms Bex said.

'Changed tack' The hospital trust launched an investigation into the incident within a few weeks.

In a statement, Dr Dharmasena said he had carried out the procedure because he thought the woman wanted him to. He also said Mr Mohamed had urged him to do so.

He said: "At no point in time did I intentionally or deliberately want to cause any harm to the patient. I had obeyed all of the patient's wishes."

But jurors were told he had changed his justification when he was interviewed by police in August 2013.

Ms Bex said: "It would seem that Dr Dharmasena had familiarised himself with the law and you may feel that he changed tack as a result."

Ten months after the operation, he raised the possibility that it had been "medically justified", she told the court.

Dr Dharmasena denies one count of female genital mutilation.

Mr Mohamed denies one count of aiding or abetting the procedure, and one count of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence.

The trial continues.

LEEDS, UK: "Male cutting worse than some female cutting" - Judge

InsideMAN
January 15, 2015

Male circumcision can be worse than FGM rules senior judge

by Glen Poole

One of the country’s most senior judges has courted controversy by declaring that male circumcision can be more harmful than female genital mutilation (FGM).

Sir James Munby acknowledged he was entering “deep waters” by highlighting inconsistencies in the law, but said it would be “irrational” to dispute the fact that male circumcision can be more harmful than some forms of FGM. The High Court judge made the comments as he passed judgment in care proceedings brought by a local authority seeking to take a brother and sister, from a Muslim family, into care on the grounds that the girl was a victim of Type IV FGM.

While the case failed on the grounds that damage to the girl’s genitals was probably caused by a condition called vulvovaginitis, Munby, who is president of the family division, felt compelled to highlight the sexist double standard that the case brought to light.

In summing up the judge noted that while subjecting a girl to Type IV FGM could result in that child being taken into care, male circumcision would not lead to a boy being removed from his family, even though the procedure is more harmful than at least some forms of Type IV FGM.

An inconvenient truth 
Campaigners against male circumcision have long been hampered by the myth that subjecting girls to FGM is different and always worse than circumcising boys.

The uncomfortable truth, to which Munby has now given judicial credibility, is that male circumcision is different and sometimes worse than FGM.

This is particularly true of Type IV FGM which incorporates practices such as pricking, piercing and nicking the genitals, which are less harmful and invasive than removing the foreskin in it’s entirety.
Male circumcision in the UK is often performed without anaesthetic, in non-medical conditions and can cause complications such as life threatening haemorrhage, shock, sepsis an in extreme cases death.

In 2012 a Freedom of Information request revealed that two boys a week are admitted to the emergency department of Birmingham children’s hospital as a result of male circumcision.

Society more tolerant of male circumcision 
However, despite Munby’s assessment that ”on any objective view” male circumcisions is sometimes worse than FGM, he also made clear that current judicial thinking is that there is no equivalence between the two practices.

“In 2015 ,” he said in his judgment, “the law generally, and family law in particular, is still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms.

“Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGM WHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.”

The phrase “significant harm” is important as this is the first threshold that must be crossed before a child can be taken into care under section 31 of the Children’s Act 1989. There is another criteria which must also be considered in care proceedings and this is whether the care given to a child is “what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give”.

Why the law is different 
According to Munby, while it can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of FGM on a child, the position is quite different with male circumcision.

Munby argued that there are at least two important distinctions between the two practices. Firstly, that FGM has no basis in any religion, while male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons. Secondly, that while FGM is said to have no medical justification and confers no health benefits; male circumcision is seen by some people as providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits, although opinions are divided.

Even taking the conflicting medical evidence on any perceived benefits into account, Munby concluded that “reasonable” parenting should be seen to permit male circumcision.

And that is where UK law stands on the matter today. The Head of the Family Division of the Family Court has judged that while male circumcision is sometimes worse than FGM, it is deemed to be reasonable for parents of all backgrounds to circumcise their sons, while carrying out a less invasive and less harmful from of Type IV FGM on their daughters is not considered reasonable parental behaviour.
...

LONDON: No charges in 10 out of 12 female cutting cases

Evening Standard
November 17, 2014

Fight against FGM suffers a blow as more cases are dropped without charges

by Martin Bentham
Hopes of a landmark first British prosecution for the female genital mutilation of a child were dealt a blow today, after the number of suspected “cutting” cases over which no charges will be brought rose to double figures.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided that “no further action” could be taken in 10 out of 12 cases referred to it by police, and only two files were still being considered for possible criminal charges.

It said that reasons for vetoing prosecution included the reluctance of one victim to testify against a 35-year-old suspect from London. A gap in the 1985 law banning FGM in England and Wales made it impossible to prosecute a Somali woman aged 40 who allegedly subjected her daughter to mutilation during a holiday in her homeland.

Three other women, two of whom were arrested at Heathrow, escaped charges because items they possessed — which police believed were going to be used for cutting — could also be used for other “traditional practices” that were lawful.

A 38-year-old London man who threatened to inflict FGM has been told he will not be charged because police were unable to show that he intended to put his words into action.

News that so many investigations have failed to produce prosecutions will disappoint campaigners, and reinforce concerns that existing measures to combat FGM are inadequate. They will also raise fears about the ability of the Metropolitan police — whose detectives are facing a growing burden from historical child sex abuse cases — to overcome the difficulty of obtaining proof to bring offenders to justice.

Ministers have already responded to the lack of charges by announcing a raft of legal reforms, including anonymity for victims and a new duty on parents to prevent mutilation. These are currently passing through Parliament as part of the Serious Crime Bill.

Today the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard vowed to do all in their power to charge offenders.

A CPS spokeswoman said FGM had “devastating consequences for girls and women” and it welcomed the government’s action to strengthen the law, in response to recommendations from Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders. “The proposed changes [will mean] there will be a positive duty on parents or carers to prevent their child from being mutilated, and a positive duty on medical and healthcare professionals to report FGM and people at risk from it,” the spokeswoman said.

“The changes will extend our powers to prosecute for actions committed overseas; enable us to work with police to build stronger cases; and give those that inflict such cruelty on women and girls fewer places to hide.”

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said the Met “remains absolutely resolute in its efforts to detect and prevent FGM”, and was working with heath, education and other professionals to ensure that girls at risk and victims were identified.

She added: “FGM is a hidden crime. It is a taboo subject within families and practising communities, making it very difficult for police to detect. We are now focusing on trying to secure the information about those committing the offences so there is less of a reliance on the victim giving evidence — often against their loved ones.”

Two people, doctor Dhanuson Dharmasena, 32, and another man who cannot be named, have been charged with FGM offences over the alleged mutilation of a woman who had just given birth at The Whittington Hospital in Archway. Both deny the allegations and are due to stand trial in January at Southwark Crown Court.

Anyone who has been subjected to FGM or who is at risk should contact the police on 999 or Project Azure officers on 0207 161 2888. They can also call the NSPCC FGM helpline on 0800 028 3550.

WOOLWICH, UK: Bogus nurse who nearly killed boy jailed

The Evening Standard
April 11, 2014

Bogus circumcision nurse who almost killed baby jailed

by Alexandra Rucki
A bogus nurse who carried out a circumcision on a baby boy and almost killed him has been jailed.

Taiwo Shittu, 55, of Atwood House, Dulwich, pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm in relation to the incident which took place on November 23 last year.

Woolwich Crown Court heard the parents of the two month old boy arranged for Shittu, who they named as Ms Alhaja, to perform the procedure at their home in Plumstead and paid her £100.

But the baby boy was brought into the A&E department of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich by his parents concerned with the amount of blood he was losing.

Doctors examined the child and deemed his condition to be life threatening.

He was transferred to Guy’s and St Thomas’ for emergency surgery, where a team of plastic surgeons attempted to rectify the damage caused to his penis.

An investigation was launched shortly afterwards by specialist detective from the Sexual Offences, Exploitation and Child Abuse Command launched an investigation.

Efforts to trace Shittu began immediately and she was arrested at an address in Dulwich in December.
Officers discovered medical paraphernalia at her home address, as well as hospital grade antibiotics and surgical scissors.

Shittu claimed she worked as a midwife and nurse in her native Nigeria and carried out circumcisions there and in the UK.

But police uncovered she was a fake and had no formal medical qualifications as a nurse or midwife in the UK.

She was sentenced to 30 weeks imprisonment.

Detective Sergeant Kam Sodhi said: "The care she provided in the course of the procedure was so bad that it not only put a very young baby in a life threatening condition but it amounted to a serious crime.

"This was a medical procedure which, like any other, carries a risk. She failed to properly manage it and because of this caused the baby a serious and permanent injury."

SUSSEX: Doctor charged with female cutting

West Sussex County Times
December 9, 2013

Medic accused of genital mutilation

A doctor will go before medical watchdogs today accused of carrying out female genital mutilation on a patient. Dr Sureshkumar Vallabhdas Pandya, who practises in London, is said to have undertook the procedure, sometimes called female circumcision, which has been outlawed in the UK for the past 28 years. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is carried out for cultural, religious and social reasons and some traditions believe it will reduce a woman's libido and discourage sexual activity before marriage. It is prevalent in some Muslim countries where a high value is placed on a woman's chastity and modesty. It has been estimated that more than 20,000 girls under 15 are at risk of FGM in the UK each year, and that 66,000 women in the UK have undergone the procedure. But the true extent is unknown due to the "hidden" nature of the crime. No one has ever been prosecuted for FGM in the UK. Dr Pandya, who will go before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service sitting in Manchester later today, is also alleged to have provided inadequate pre and post operative care and his advice to the patient was misleading and dishonest. It is also alleged that Dr Pandya's record keeping did not meet the required standards.

LONDON: Court ducks for cover in circumcision/custody case

UK Human Rights Blog
July 20, 2013

UK court ducks position on circumcision

by Rosiland English


605islamSS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 888 - read judgment
...
Background facts
The appellant and her husband were Roman Catholics and their six year old son (C) had also been brought up as a Catholic. While the appellant and her son were visiting her sister in the United Kingdom, the husband converted to Islam. The mother claimed asylum on the grounds that if she were returned to Malaysia, she would be arrested and risk ill-treatment from her husband, who would also insist that C be raised as a Muslim and be circumcised.

She submitted that to deny her the opportunity of teaching C about her own religious faith was a “flagrant” breach of her right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of her right under Article 9 to practise her religion (flagrancy being a base-line requirement for resisting immigration controls). Whilst she acknowledged that circumcision need not violate a child’s rights in the context of loving family relationships and where supported by both parents, the appellant was strongly opposed to the procedure and maintained that it would not be in C’s best interests to return him to Malaysia where his father’s wishes would prevail over her own. She also contended that the tribunal below had failed to consider C’s best interests except in its assessment of proportionality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Reasoning behind the judgment
... As for the circumcision question, it was unnecessary to decide whether the procedure could infringe a child’s rights under Article 3 or Article 8 as the first instance tribunal had found that C would have the positive emotional support of his father and would be conforming to the broad expectations of his culture, both significant factors. Indeed, Moore-Blick LJ found it “difficult to see how C’s circumcision would involve any infringement of the appellant’s Convention rights”

...

Comment
Male circumcision is a widespread religious and cultural practice which has ancient origins…it is regarded as an acceptable practice among communities of all kinds, provided it is carried out under appropriate conditions.

Slavery, capital punishment, racial or gender discrimination and many other practices are also widespread and sanctified by ancient tradition: the obvious riposte is that neither popularity nor antiquity shield such institutions from scrutiny by the Human Rights Convention or other international instruments. It is interesting that no mention was made in this case of the widely-covered German regional court ruling on circumcision, where the court paid particular regard to the fact that circumcision led to the child’s body being “permanently and irreparably changed” and that it could affect his own religious interests later should he decide, for example, not to be a Muslim (see Adam Wagner’s post with its link to the English translation of the ruling). In that case the Cologne Regional Court decided that

The circumcision of a boy unable to give medical consent, correctly performed by a doctor for religious reasons with the consent of the parents, is not excluded from the definition of the offence [in German law of assault]…the occasioning of the circumcision by the parents has no effect of justification, since the parents’ right to religious upbringing of their children, when weighed against the right of the child to physical integrity and to self-determination, has no priority, and consequently their consent to the circumcision conflicts with the child’s best interests.
...

The appellant mother in this instant case was, in effect, asking the court to take a position on a doctrinal matter: the centrality of the circumcision procedure to Islamic observance. And it balked at the challenge, because doing so would get it embroiled in the controversy over rival religious practices. Was it right to do so? Yes, because religious experience should be inviolately private and therefore out of place in a public forum. No, because in a case where religion touches on a child’s interests, and the welfare of children is meant to be a paramount consideration, the courts are under a duty to square up to the issue, even if it is normally kept under wraps. If circumcision is one of the sharp demands placed on the child by religious faith, it should be scrutinised with the same rigour as any other practice which affects the interests of the child.

LONDON: Two out of five would ban infant circumcision

Nearly two out of five support a ban on infant circumcision

Jewish Chronicle
March 27, 2013

Forty five per cent of Britons ready to ban shechita

by Simon Rocker

Almost half the population favour a ban on religious slaughter of animals for meat and nearly a third want a ban on male circumcision, according to the results of a YouGov poll for the JC.

Asked whether they support or oppose a ban on religious slaughter, 45 per cent back a ban, 27 per cent are against and 28 per cent say they do not know.

Opinion diverges less when respondents are asked about “male circumcision for religious reasons”, with 38 per cent [More like 2/5 than 1/3] supporting a ban, 35 per cent against and 27 per cent undecided.

Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein, head of the Federation Beth Din, said: “It’s worrying and it shows we need to do a lot more public relations to put our case.”

...

Forty-one per cent of 18-24 year-olds would ban both shechita and circumcision.

...

The German government recently passed legislation to protect religious circumcision after a mohel was arrested last year. [No, not even detained, but convicted and discharged.]

...

But David Graham, senior research fellow of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, cautioned against reading too much into the figures.

...

If people are asked are whether they support or oppose a ban on an issue, he said, “the seed of doubt is already sown in the respondent’s mind, before he or she has had a chance to consider what they are being asked. It is hardly surprising a majority opts for a ban.”

[Perhaps if the question had been,

"Do you think babies' genitals should

1. be left alone?
2. have part cut off?"

the proportion in favour of intactness would have been considerably higher.]


...

SHEFFIELD, UK: Circumcision funding cut sparks "backstreet" fears

BBC
January 17, 2013

Sheffield circumcision cuts spark backstreet op fear

Funding for male circumcision for non-medical reasons in Sheffield is to be cut, sparking concerns there will be a rise in backstreet operations.

About 200 circumcisions are carried out for religious reasons in Sheffield each year, at a cost of £200,000.

NHS Sheffield's Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is looking to make savings and has proposed making families pay for the procedure.

Members of the city's Islamic community have complained about the decision.

Community worker Wahid Nazir said Muslim and Jewish communities would be affected.

"If these proposals go ahead these people that are doing these circumcisions in the backstreets, people that are not medically qualified, are going to become more prominent... and there's going to be more problems and young children are going to be put at risk.

"In Sheffield it was advertised and people were encouraged to go to the NHS and get things done properly and it was very successful. So we're taking a backward step."

The move would bring Sheffield in line with national guidelines from the Department of Health, which say circumcisions should not be funded when they are requested for non-medical reasons.

In a statement, the CCG said: "Nationally, the NHS does not fund routine or religious circumcisions but despite this, Sheffield continues to spend £200,000 a year on these operations.

"As a CCG, we have to review what is the best use of funding for the half a million people who live in our city and as we only carry out around 200 circumcisions a year, we can assume that many parents are already using non-NHS funded services.

"As a CCG we are keen to ensure that all services we fund are medically necessary and appropriate whilst also providing the best value for money for all."

Earlier story

Circumcision in the UK Most circumcisions in the UK are done for non-therapeutic reasons (religious) Currently no formal qualifications are required to perform the operation Jewish boys are circumcised when they are eight-days-old by a Mohel - a Jewish person trained in the practice of brit milah, the covenant of circumcision [So the NHS is not involved.] Most Muslim boys and some Christians are also circumcised as babies. [Circumcision has no place in Christianity] There is no equivalent of a Jewish Mohel in Islam or Christianity with procedures usually carried out by doctors Some medical experts have called for religious circumcision to be offered on the NHS to minimise the risk of post-operative complications

BRISTOL: Imam says to cheat FGC law by taking girls abroad

Daily Mail
April 29, 2012

'Cheat genital mutilation ban by going abroad': British Muslim leader caught on camera advocating female circumcision

By Ian Garland
A British Muslim leader has been caught on camera advocating female genital mutilation.

Mohammed Abdul, the Imam of a Bristol mosque, was filmed urging a follower to take women and girls abroad so they can be circumcised legally.

The practise was banned by law in 2003, and it's illegal to help or encourage anyone to carry out the barbaric procedure overseas.

The footage was obtained by an undercover reporter working for the Sunday Times newspaper, who posed as a Muslim seeking advice.

During a meeting with Mohammed Abdul at the Masjid al-Huda mosque: 'In this country, it is not possible, we cannot do that. (For) any other Muslim who likes to practise the way of Prophet Muhammad, the best way is to go to other countries.

'Some families, they go to Africa or Arab countries.

Although female genital mutilation (FGM) has not been advocated by Muslim scripture, a number of clerics encourage it.
...
It's estimated 100,000 women in Britain have undergone the procedure and another 24,000 are thought to be at risk.
...
Since the law was passed in 2003, no-one has been prosecuted for carring out female genital mutilation.

Forward chief executive Naana Otoo-Oyortey said she hopes the new evidence will force the government to do more to combat the problem.
...

Earlier story

LONDON: Girls "at risk" of FGC in UK

Sky News
April 22, 2012

Medics Offered Genital Mutilation, Report Says

By Ian Woods
As many as 100,000 women in Britain may have been mutilated in the name of culture and religion, a report claims.
[There seems no basis for the "100,000" figure - but any FGC is too much.]
...
The Sunday Times has uncovered what it claims is evidence of three medical practitioners offering advice on how it could be done, or in one case charging £750 to carry out the procedure.
...
Omar Sheikh Mohamed Addow is a dentist in Birmingham, but was filmed describing how the clitoris could be pierced with a needle and then clamped.

"Once they won't feel anything, then you cut with scissors. It will bleed. Then you take the stitches. You close."

When contacted by Sky News he denied he said ever been involved in the act.

"I have not referred anyone for this treatment. I am a dentist. I am aware of female genital mutilation and have campaigned against it."

Yet he was he recorded by the Sunday Times apparently agreeing to mutilate two young girls, aged 10 and 13, in secret:
Omar Sheikh Mohamed Addow: I will do it for you.
Sunday Times reporter: Thank you.
Addow: Nobody should know. Between you me and Allah only. The Sunday Times say they were put in touch with the Birmingham dentist by Dr Ali Mao Aweys, who has practices in Birmingham and London and was recorded suggesting it was safer to have the surgery outside the UK.

"Yes it must have (sic) confidential. But I think it's better if you go to Africa, and then do, and then stay for 14 days, and then I give you some medication you can take and then give them."

When Sky News visited his practice in north London his receptionist told us he was not prepared to comment and asked us to leave.

... the [General Medical C]ouncil’s chief executive, Niall Dixon, said he was concerned and has begun an investigation.

Mohammad Sahib describes himself as an alternative medicine practitioner and the newspaper said he wanted £750 to perform surgery on the genitalia.

The newspaper secretly recorded this exchange:
Sunday Times (ST): You'll cut the clitoris?
Mohammad Sahib (MS): Yeah
ST: You'll cut with blade?
MB: Yeah
ST: You'll do it here?
MB: Yeah.
ST: What about stitching? Sew it?
MB: Yes I can do both. ...
Equality Now campaigner Efua Dorkenoo told Sky News: "Members of the community,family members know about it... there's a lot of pressure.

"And if you expose it you could be ostracised and you could be persecuted in the community.
"So people are frightened of coming forward."
...