Remarks from the Fray:
The only thing really amazing about this case is that others are amazed this is still happening...as in there seems to still be a double standard between men and women...which of course is alive and well.
It wasn't very long ago [60's?] that a womans' uterus belonged to her husband. Before she could have her tubes tied all the criteria had to be met. She had to have 3 children, be of a certain age and permission given from her husband. The really astounding thing about this is it didn't even matter if the woman's life was in danger due to having life threatening pregnancies...it only mattered what was best for the male spouse [penis].
Now let us fast forward 45 years and we see not too much has changed. Most insurance companies do not cover birth control pills for women but it certainly covers male impotence enhancing drugs. I'm sure if I think hard enough I could think of many other examples.
Sadly, it doesn't matter that this young woman's sexual organ [the one that gives her pleasure] has been mutilated due no doubt to some custom perpetrated by men or that she will be forced to marry a close relative of her father's choosing. What makes us think that the men in this country would refrain from sending her back to the male relatives who think her only redeeming quality is being a brood mare for the incubating of the male sperm. I say, absolutely nothing!
We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts.
--SouthernGal
(To reply, click here.)
(11/12)
Thank you for your recent Hot Document on the female genital mutilation case decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I really enjoyed reading Bonnie Goldstein's piece, especially as this is such an important area of law that deserves to be given more attention by the press. Immigration law is also a notoriously complex field, and Ms. Goldstein's presentation of this case makes it easily accessible to general readers. I would like, however, to draw your attention to two misleading areas of Ms. Goldstein's piece:
1) The title is "Why Female Genital Mutilation Won't Get You Asylum." This is misleading because FGM has gotten hundreds of women asylum in the U.S. It is established U.S. law that any woman who has a credible fear of undergoing FGM if she is returned to her country will be eligible for asylum. The recent case discussed by Ms. Goldstein applies only to individuals who have already undergone FGM and are basing their asylum claim on past persecution. Readers of Slate not informed about this topic, however, will assume based on the title that U.S. law fails to provide for FGM at all.
2) Ms. Goldstein also writes that "[t]his decision would appear to go against legal precedent" because "a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco" had ruled the opposite way previously. Later, she writes that "the board stubbornly reasserted its earlier interpretation and rejected the higher court's reasoning." While technically correct, this is a misleading presentation of the facts because it implies that the board rejected the binding legal precedent of a higher court. This is not true since the Ninth Circuit's decisions (appeals court in San Francisco) are not binding on the Board for cases coming out of other circuits, such as the Fourth Circuit (this case).
So while Ms. Goldstein's piece is technically correct, it is highly misleading for readers without legal training. Perhaps a quick revision/correction would help clarify the case for readers? But, all in all, thanks again for a great piece on the status of female genital mutilation in U.S. asylum law!
--Anony
(To reply, click here.)
(11/17)
PRINT
E-MAIL
RECOMMEND...
RSS
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The John Cassavetes Movie That Changed American Cinema Forever
Am I Wasting My Money if I Give to a Needy Family at Christmas?
Troy Patterson: What I Love About Glee
Hurray! We Won the War on Spam.
Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball Is a Crude, Fantastic Mess
Thanks, FDA, but We Don't Need Your Protection From Raw Oysters
Remarks from the Fray:
The only thing really amazing about this case is that others are amazed this is still happening...as in there seems to still be a double standard between men and women...which of course is alive and well.
It wasn't very long ago [60's?] that a womans' uterus belonged to her husband. Before she could have her tubes tied all the criteria had to be met. She had to have 3 children, be of a certain age and permission given from her husband. The really astounding thing about this is it didn't even matter if the woman's life was in danger due to having life threatening pregnancies...it only mattered what was best for the male spouse [penis].
Now let us fast forward 45 years and we see not too much has changed. Most insurance companies do not cover birth control pills for women but it certainly covers male impotence enhancing drugs. I'm sure if I think hard enough I could think of many other examples.
Sadly, it doesn't matter that this young woman's sexual organ [the one that gives her pleasure] has been mutilated due no doubt to some custom perpetrated by men or that she will be forced to marry a close relative of her father's choosing. What makes us think that the men in this country would refrain from sending her back to the male relatives who think her only redeeming quality is being a brood mare for the incubating of the male sperm. I say, absolutely nothing!
We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts.
--SouthernGal
(To reply, click here.)
(11/12)
Thank you for your recent Hot Document on the female genital mutilation case decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I really enjoyed reading Bonnie Goldstein's piece, especially as this is such an important area of law that deserves to be given more attention by the press. Immigration law is also a notoriously complex field, and Ms. Goldstein's presentation of this case makes it easily accessible to general readers. I would like, however, to draw your attention to two misleading areas of Ms. Goldstein's piece:
1) The title is "Why Female Genital Mutilation Won't Get You Asylum." This is misleading because FGM has gotten hundreds of women asylum in the U.S. It is established U.S. law that any woman who has a credible fear of undergoing FGM if she is returned to her country will be eligible for asylum. The recent case discussed by Ms. Goldstein applies only to individuals who have already undergone FGM and are basing their asylum claim on past persecution. Readers of Slate not informed about this topic, however, will assume based on the title that U.S. law fails to provide for FGM at all.
2) Ms. Goldstein also writes that "[t]his decision would appear to go against legal precedent" because "a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco" had ruled the opposite way previously. Later, she writes that "the board stubbornly reasserted its earlier interpretation and rejected the higher court's reasoning." While technically correct, this is a misleading presentation of the facts because it implies that the board rejected the binding legal precedent of a higher court. This is not true since the Ninth Circuit's decisions (appeals court in San Francisco) are not binding on the Board for cases coming out of other circuits, such as the Fourth Circuit (this case).
So while Ms. Goldstein's piece is technically correct, it is highly misleading for readers without legal training. Perhaps a quick revision/correction would help clarify the case for readers? But, all in all, thanks again for a great piece on the status of female genital mutilation in U.S. asylum law!
--Anony
(To reply, click here.)
(11/17)