In a policy shift that smacks of appeasement, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested American doctors should be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick on girls from Muslim culture in order to keep their families from imposing full circumcision cliterdectomies.
The academy’s committee on bioethics justified their position by noting federal law “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, thereby driving some families to take their daughters overseas to undergo mutilation. Presumably, the ritual “nick” is a compromise to avoid greater harm.
But whatever the intention, this policy shift vouchsafes legitimacy to a practice that should not be permitted. How much bloodletting will satisfy parents? And at what point do compromises end? For example, if Muslim countries allow wife beating and slavery, do we allow a little of these practices in the United States in order to avoid more extreme examples? Perhaps a punch or two would be acceptable.
Insisting that the practice of mutilation is wrong, unacceptable and barbaric does not indicates “insensitivity” to another culture. There are humane considerations which transcend cultural practice and that should be honored everywhere.
Currently, 130 million females worldwide have undergone genital mutilation according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is mostly performed on girls under the age of 15. Very often, this procedure results in severe complications with pregnancy and sexual dysfunction.
But where are the feminists? If there were ever an issue that should bring feminists to the barricades, this is it. Moreover, a compromise that legitimates even the recognition of this monstrous practice should be seen for what it is: the thin edge of the wedge that will allow for other barbaric acts.
On a larger front, this decision by pediatricians reveals a sentiment widespread in Europe and now gaining traction in the United States: a desire to avoid conflict through preemptive compromises. Since intimidation is a backstage theme, Western nations prefer conciliation to violence, even if it means undermining the fabric of society. That explains why British and Danish representatives have discussed acknowledging Sharia law in legal matters. Of course, reconciliation isn’t possible since Sharia law is not capable of accommodating common law and Constitutional principles. For Muslims, it is all or nothing and, since they recognize the vulnerability of Western institutions, it is more “all” than “nothing.”
That an intelligent group of doctors do not recognize the implications in their actions is truly puzzling. But then again, so many are blinded by fear and hope that a “modest” measure of compromise will satisfy the demanding voices. Rarely, of course, does reciprocity enter the equation. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unfortunately, that is not the way Islam is treated in most Western capitals.
This is not the end of this cultural tale; there are and will be further compromises and from many surprising sources. Where this is leading is frighteningly clear: the incremental adjustment in Western standards will lead ultimately to civilizational change that champions extreme Islamic sentiment.
-Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of “Decade of Denial” and “America's Secular Challenge.”
