Female Genital Mutilation Conference

 Check against delivery

Female Genital Mutilation Conference



A Human Rights Perspective

I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and their elders past and present. 



May I welcome each of you to the Australian Human Rights Commission.



Congratulations to the organizers, the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit and NO FGM, and especially Professor Elizabeth Elliot, for organizing this conference on FGM that brings many people together from the medical and legal professions and civil society to discuss an issue that, as a community, we are slowing coming to recognize, if not yet fully to understand.



I especially welcome the collaboration between government, medical practitioners, lawyers, police, academics, community organisations, and especially women community leaders, and those directly affected. 

Let us look at some facts.

Female genital mutilation is the practice of removing or damaging the external female genitalia for non-medical or non-health reasons.

Last year we saw the first ever FGM prosecution in NSW of the cutting of two young girls. A mother, a retired mid-wife, and a religious leader were convicted.  But this case appears to be unique, as no other States or Territories in Australia record either criminal prosecutions or reports of FGM.

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund estimate that between 100 million and 140 million girls and women worldwide have been subjected to a type of female genital mutilation.



While there is anecdotal evidence of FGM of girls in Australia, there is very little objective prevalence data. This is for the obvious reasons that FGM occurs secretly and is carried out by a child’s most trusted family members. FGM is rarely reported as children fear repercussions for the family they love.



The Australian Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF do, however, have data that suggests that 83,000 women and girls in Australia may have been subjected to FGM, a statistic that rests on the fact that a girl is most likely to be subject to this procedure if her mother has had FGM. It is estimated that 5,640 girls under 15 may be in danger and 1,100 girls are born every year to women who have had FGM.

The key issue remains how to identify which girls are most at risk.



From the perspective of the AHRC, FGM is a human rights issue and has been recognised as a violation of the legal rights of women and girls. The Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,  the Committee for the Convention on the Rights of the Child,  and the UN General Assembly, each recognizes that FGM is a form of discrimination and gender-based violence that infringes the rights to life, health, and freedom from injury, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and violence.



The CRC adopts 4 general principles with respect to harmful practices against children;



• protection from discrimination

• the best interests of the child

• the right to life, survival and development

• the right to be heard



Of special relevance to Australia today, in light of the Safe Schools debate, (and, sadly, the restriction of the program), is the recommendation that all nations should ensure that schools provide age-appropriate information on sexual and reproductive health and rights in relations to gender relations, sexual behaviour, protection from violence and harmful practices.



In short, the United Nations has concluded that member States have an obligation to take measures to address and eliminate the practice of FGM.

In the recent and ground breaking Conclusions for the 60th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women held just a few weeks ago, all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls were condemned, including FGM. The Commission recognised FGM as an impediment to the full achievement of gender equality and of the empowerment of women and to the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

In 2014 both the CEDAW and CRC Committees issued a Joint General Recommendation/General Comment No. 31,  to the effect that all States have an obligation to adopt legislation and policies to eliminate harmful practices and violence against women. States may take temporary “special measures” to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with respect to FGM.

CEDAW Committee recommends that parties should ensure that any efforts undertaken to tackle harmful practices and to challenge and change underlying social norms are community based and founded on a human rights approach that includes the active participation of all relevant stakeholders, especially women and girls.

They further recommend that children participating in legal processes have access to appropriate services to safeguard their rights and safety and to limit any negative impacts of the proceedings; special efforts need to be made to ensure that migrant women and children have equal access to support services, regardless of their legal status.



What is the position under Australian law? 



We all know that there is a wide gap between international legal obligations, treaties and recommendations of UN committees and their implementation in national laws. FGM is prohibited in all Australian states and territories and is a form of child abuse falling within child protection laws.  It is also illegal to take a child out of the jurisdiction for FGM purposes.



In practice, as I have mentioned, cases of FGM are rarely prosecuted under Australian law.



While I have spoken about the law and legal rights, many of you here today will know that legislative measures alone are not sufficient to curb the practice of FGM.



Preventative responses-education and awareness raising- are vital to ensure a community culture that rejects such abuses of women and girls. This is where the medical, social or psychological professional support becomes a vital part of prevention.



The United Kingdom has introduced a new initiative to help to identify girls at high risk of FGM by collecting information and recording it on a FGM dataset. All women are asked if they have had FGM and if so, an alert is added to their medical files, and their families are provided with educational materials and support.



The UK has also introduced a FGM child protection order, similar to those that exist under Australian law, but are rarely ever used.



In summary, we return, as we always do in human rights matters, to education as the key to changing attitudes, behaviours and stereotypes that foster a culture of acceptance of FGM.

In 2014, the Australian Human Rights Commission hosted a  “Rights Talk” with members of the Our Voices: Filling the Gaps – FGM Spokesperson Program.  This was a six-month human rights education program that brought together 14 women from 9 affected communities across Australia to develop leadership and advocacy for social change in respect of FGM.



The program was based on the core idea that it is important to support women and girls in their local communities to discuss, educate and lead as human rights advocates, the aim being to bring their communities with them as they seek to challenge the traditional practice of FGM.



The Australian Government has also provided support for diverse cultural communities across Australia including the development of the National Education Toolkit for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Australia (NEFTA),  hosted by the Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health. The NEFTA project is focused on raising awareness from within local and cultural communities about the negative consequences of FGM. It also provides a platform for partners from each state and territory to share their best practice recommendations and resources.

Prevention and education remain the vital strategies.

It is through the sum of all our individual efforts that we can see real change in Australia. 

Thank you 



 

1 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No.24 Women and Health, (1999), paragraph 15. At http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom… (1 April 2016). 

2 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Togo (1997), para 24. 

3 UN General Assembly Third Committee, Intensifying Global Effort to Eliminate Female Genital Mutilations Resolution (UN Doc. A/67/450 III). At http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11331.doc.htm  (viewed 1 April 2016).

4 UN Commission on the Status of Women, 60th Session, Women’s empowerment and the link to sustainable development: Agreed Conclusions, 60th Session, (2016). At http://www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/csw/6… (viewed 1 April 2016). 

5 Joint general recommendation/general comment No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/31-CRC/C/GC/18, (2014). At http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/Recommendations.aspx (viewed 1 April 2016).



6 The National Education Toolkit for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Australia, http://www.netfa.com.au/ (viewed 1 April 2016).