Luis Castillo and Andrew Anglin
November 22, 2018
The Islamic practice of female genital mutilation has always been a difficult issue for feminists and Jews alike.
For feminists, it’s obviously very illiberal and dis-empowering to cut out off parts of women’s genitals and sew their labia together, but it raises the obvious question – what about male circumcision?
It is exactly the same thing – you remove a part of the genitals that it is intended for sexual pleasure so that that child, when it becomes an adult, she or he will have less fulfilling sexual experiences. There also appears to be an intent to inflict ritual torture/trauma on the child.
The media has attempted to use different names to argue that one is bad and the other is good – “genital mutilation” for girls, “circumcision” for boys. However, Moslems call the former “female circumcision,” and men’s rights advocates call the latter “male genital mutilation.”
The male version is arguably worse, because men’s genitalia is outside of their body, so anytime they are in a locker room or an intimate situation with a woman from a country where this is not performed, it’s like “wow, what’s wrong with your dick?”
Moslems at least do this equally – mutilating the genitals of boys and girls alike. You gotta give them that. Jews only do it to boys. America is the only country where it is done to non-Jewish boys, because of Jewish influence on the American medical industry and culture generally. Jewish doctors (and some weird puritan Christians, to be fair) sold this to America, saying it would make boys less likely to masturbate.
Feminists obviously don’t care about men’s rights. That’s the whole point of their thing. However, when they start making too much noise about the issue of female genital mutilation, they eventually wind up arguing that it is a violation of human rights to cut off parts of a child’s genitals.
This makes some people very uncomfortable.
Judge Friedman is one of those people.
A Detroit judge has dropped nearly all the charges against a Michigan doctor accused of performing female genital mutilation on at least nine underage girls, according to court documents.
In a decision filed Tuesday, Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that the federal female genital mutilation law is unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the right to criminalize the practice, and therefore he dismissed six of eight charges in the United States’ first federal case involving the procedure.
“Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation],” Friedman wrote, calling it a “local criminal activity” for the states to regulate, not Congress.
And then, I told the goyim that Congress overstepped its bounds!
Finally, one brave rat-faced judge finally found the point at which Congress had overstepped its bounds – telling people not to mutilate children’s genitals.
Dr. Jumana Nagarwala is the lead defendant in the case. While the charges of conspiring to commit and committing female genital mutilation, as well as aiding and abetting others in doing so, have been dropped, Nagarwala still faces charges of conspiring to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. She was charged alongside Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, his wife, Farida Attar, and five other residents of Michigan and Minnesota.
Her attorney, Shannon Smith, said she and Nagarwala are thrilled with Friedman’s decision.
“He wrote a well-reasoned opinion and we are happy to see that his conclusion about the constitutionality of the law matched our analysis as well,” Smith said Tuesday. “My client is ecstatic, but she’s still nervous because she still faces other charges in federal court.”
Female genital mutilation refers to “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other nonmedical reasons,” according to the United Nations Population Fund. While it is performed for myriad sociological, cultural, religious, hygienic and socioeconomic reasons, it is banned by law in at least 44 countries, including the United States. The World Health Organization considers the procedure a human rights violation.
Do they consider this to be a human rights violation?
Because that would be anti-Semitic.
But surely, that’s not the reason WHO would give. That is too close to saying “we’re controlled by the Jews.”
So, why is it not a human rights violation to remove the foreskin of a baby boy’s penis and suck the blood out of it, World Health Organization?
This is why feminists are told to just forget about this and go back to attacking white men. It raises a very obvious question about Jewish blood magick rituals.
This is absolute barbarism, this cutting up of babies’ genitals.
But here we are in current year when you’re not allowed to legally spank a child without being charged with abuse… and the government says it’s illegal to stop someone from chopping up genitals of infants.