Let me take this opportunity to add my voice to those opposed to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I have read with great care the debate and/or exchange between Doreen Lwanga and Faiza Jama Mohammed regarding FGM, and my observations are presented below.

Ms. Lwanga quoted the language of Article 5 relating to the vis: 'Elimination of Harmful Practices', defined in Article 1(g) as ".. all behaviour, attitudes and/or practices which negatively affect the fundamental rights of women and girls, such as their right to life, health, dignity, education and physical integrity." She maintained, "What is not clear [to her] is what forms of Female Genital Mutilation (or cutting) fall under this category as 'harmful'?". For cry not loud, couldn't Ms. Lwanga realize that the operative words are "harmful practices" and "Female Genital Mutilation"? Clearly and in the context of the contentious article:

a) HARMFUL: This means damaging, injurious, destructive, detrimental, hurtful, unsafe etc. To that extent, the Article would not bar practices that don't fit in any of the above. However, for the practice to be protected it ought to be so demonstrably antithetical "harmful" and ought to be backed by empirical evidence as opposed to emotional submissions and/or attachment thereto.

b) MUTILATION: this refers to disfigurement, defacement, damage, marring, injury, maiming etc. I was disturbed by Ms. Lwanga's using mutilation and transformation interchangeably when she stated, "In different African cultures, there are different forms of female genital transformation, some of which have never been harmful to the girl child or woman".
Whereas "transformation" may not be harmful, mutilation is definitely harmful. The equivalent of transformation is merely "makeover", "alteration", "renovation" none of which connote "disfigurement", "injury" etc.

When she states: "I do not want to sound pretentious that there are no incidences where the FGM practices have produced harmful results, however, that does not make the norm harmful by itself. Malpractice could occur because of using an unsterilised instrument, conduct in uncertain locations for fear of subjective law enforcers and/or just like any other accident happens. The results may become harmful such as bleeding profusely, genital injury or death, although that does not make the norm harmful. Thus, there is a need to emphasise that there is a difference between a 'norm' and a 'practice'."

Well, whereas we have an admission as to the harmful nature of female genital mutilation, with all due respect to her sincere contribution, our friend did not offer any safe alternative. Had she advocated for legalized monitored "transformation", which I don't doubt would provide a solution, such would have offered us food for thought, but she did not.

Art. 17 of the Protocol promotes "'Positive Cultural Context". This, she says, she does not understand and wonders how it relates to the cultural rights of women as human beings. She, understandably, is opposed to any society moving to codify people's cultural practices and label them "harmful", and vehemently asserts that it is wrong to assume that you can take a "broad brush" of one group (anti-FGM/C or pro-monogamous) and sweep away the aspirations and traditions. What she missed though is that when the language of the article provides for "'Positive Cultural Context" it implies that the contemplated laws must put into consideration its contextual environment. I submit that if this approach is adopted it would not amount to "a broad brush" per se.

Assuming that the impact of such Protocol would "criminalize women's cultural lives", which is not true, but so argued by Lwanga, the effect, if the law is contextually tailored, would in essence be reflective of peoples aspirations to transform society for the better. There are societies where children (little boys and girls who have not had their monthly periods yet) are sacrificed to the "gods." To those who believe in cleansing society of its curses by offering these innocent children it is "good practice" and a "virtue".

However, all common law jurisdictions classify this as murder. Can these people present any compelling argument in their defence? I think not! To that extent mutilation cannot be defended as a virtue whatsoever, and does not add value to the value or integrity of a woman. I shall not discuss the right of a woman to choose because Faiza Jama Mohammed already responded to that.

However, my question is what is the validity of a little girl's "consent" amid cultural pressure to be "a woman"? Lwanga cited examples where mothers may be forced to sneak out of cities and take their daughters for genital mutilation! These are the desires of the mothers and not of the daughters. Often times, mothers desire that their daughters walk the "cultural journeys" which they themselves walked because they are still slaves of their past! What is disturbing is Lwanga's statement that such protocol would "deny them a chance of becoming women". Gender is not defined by mutilation but by natural endowment.

Africa's dilemma is not its uneducated and/or illiterate population but rather her highly revered elite who, notwithstanding their western exposure, continuously labour to strike a balance between "intellectualism" and/or "enlightenment" vis-à-vis cultural preservation. Whereas we may be tempted to resist "undue western influence" we should keep in mind that we have a duty to re-evaluate our cultures and rid them of vices, especially those that tend to suggest that you are not a full human being unless and until your genitals are mutilated.

Lastly, my apologies go to my sister Lwanga if my tone was harsh, because such must have been unintentional. Nonetheless, I can assure you that I was refuting the ideas in the article and not rejecting the wonderful individual who has actually ignited a healthy debate.