Religious defense planned in landmark Detroit genital mutilation case

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala child torturer, needs to meet Nagin and Lucille

Lawyers plan to claim genital cutting is allowed as a religious right. But legal experts say the First Amendment doesn’t bend that far.

On paper, the law seems clear: Cutting any part of a young girl’s genitalia is illegal — and no custom or ritual can be used to justify it.

The law has been on the books for 21 years, unchallenged.

But in a federal courtroom in Detroit, a landmark case involving the centuries-old taboo ritual is about to put that law to the test for the first time.

And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it’s just a minor nick or scraping, in the name of religion?

Share
  • pdxnag

    But, it is my “religious duty” to kill gays, and infidels, and you too, your honor.

    Is there a link to a page with links to amicus, if there be any? Who else would brazenly say in the interest of “individual”/religious liberty that our entire system must surrender to the ultimate tyrannical system of Sharia?

    How can they assert is legal authority, the First Amendment, something which they wish to fully dissolve – as a religious duty?

  • simus1

    Bit of a “Hail Mary” desperation play when you consider the perps practicing FGM in this case are part of an obscure muslim outlier cult with Indian origins. But, in a country that thinks Obama is a “black” Afro American and the burkha is “religious”, anything is possible from a judge or jury.

    • Clausewitz

      You mean that Obama the Mulatto isn’t “Black”? Who knew?

  • bargogx1

    But, but, according to Islam’s leftist apologists, it’s not a religious custom, it’s “cultural”.

    • tom_billesley

      We can look forward to another “cultural” practice:
      http://www.barenakedislam.com/2009/07/12/complete-guide-to-female-genital-mutilation-yes-its-a-muslim-thing/
      After marriage, women who have been infibulated must be forcibly penetrated. This may take up to forty days, and when men are impatient, a knife is used. Special honeymoon centers are built outside communities so that the screams of the brides will not be heard. Sometimes the husband traditionally runs through the streets with a blood-stained dagger.
      So vibrant and colourful

  • pdxnag

    Can we just nick the left ear of illegal aliens upon first discovery, so we know we must be more assertive upon second discovery? It is only just a nick, like with a feral cat. If they have notice then they can be presumed to have consented. Cruel and unusual? Not nearly as bloody as cutting off a hand and/or foot.

    How about letting a little girl reach the age of majority and then they can butcher their own genitalia, with reckless abandon, like Bruce Jenner? This isolates the issue to the right of a parent to butcher their child without state interference – which is precisely the “liberty” issue when the state does not punish honor killing of family in Islamic/Sharia law. It is all about liberty, you see, from the state.

  • Justin St.Denis

    It is our understanding that there is nothing about FGM in the Qu’ran, the Hadiths or the Sura. There is no Islamic theological basis for FGM. FGM is entirely rooted in “cultural practices” and stands as stark testimony to the FACT that all cultures are NOT equal. Some cultures are BETTER than other cultures. For example, Western Civilization is preferable to Islamic barbarity.

    • rich

      i think there is. i saw a report not long ago and there seemed to be plenty of basis for it.

    • Tooth&Claw

      It is in the hadith. Islamic apologists claim they are weak hadith. However the practice continues with Islamic sanction.

      • Justin St.Denis

        TY for the update. My understanding of Islam is not that of a theologian. I so wish we had an Islamic theologian on our side to genuinely reveal the perverse ins and outs of the ROP.

        • Tooth&Claw

          See David Wood on youtube.

  • passerby1969

    There should be no puncturing, slicing, skinning, cutting of children under the age of 18 except for immediate medical benefit. All male routine infant circumcision should be banned along with ear piercing. All of it. A child’s body only belongs to that child.

    A complete ban would make female circumcision bans more enforceable.

    • Minicapt

      There goes paediatric surgery.

      Cheers

      • passerby1969

        Read again. “Except for immediate medical benefit.” Foreskin removal, ear piercing, and female genital mutilation do not meet the criteria.

        • Minicapt

          I did. You missed my point.

          Have a nice day.

  • Dana Garcia

    Liberal lawyers are just as evil as their barbaric Islam clients.

  • tom_billesley

    “just a minor nick or scraping”.
    The only thing minor about it is that the victim is a minor.

  • Good.

    Let it be made in black and white.

    Then what will the apologists say then?