A great step forward was taken this week in parliament as government MP Chris Fearn, a paediatric surgeon filed a private members bill, calling for the horrific and barbarous practice of Female Genital Mutilation to be outlawed, whether conducted here in Malta, or abroad. With the bill as proposed, offenders could be subjected to a jail term of between four and 10 years, if found guilty.

The MP’s bill looks set to win wide approval in parliament.  The procedure which the bill would outlaw, which has no known health benefits and which may lead to numerous complications, is not yet known to have been performed in Malta, but there are worries that cultural pressures may put young girls of African origin residing in Malta at risk of undergoing the procedure overseas.

With this in mind, Dr Fearne explained, the bill does not only criminalise procedures which are carried out locally: it also criminalises any form of female genital mutilation which takes place on Maltese citizens or Maltese residents, wherever it takes place. The bill is similar to existing laws in several other countries, including Italy, the UK and the US. Sweden was the first to ban the practice, in 1982.

The MP pointed out that Maltese obstetricians are already coming across problems with women of African descent who now live in Malta when it comes to giving birth. The removal of parts (or all) of the female genitals can give rise to severe complications in delivery of babies.

Female genital mutilation mainly takes place in a region stretching from West Africa to the Horn of Africa, a region which also extends northwards to Egypt, albeit not to other African countries in the Mediterranean. This region includes, among other countries, Somalia and Eritrea, which account for the largest numbers of asylum seekers, refugees and beneficiaries of humanitarian protection in Malta. The practice cuts across religions: it is practised by Muslims, Christians and followers of indigenous religions alike. It is actually illegal in many of the countries affected, although these laws have generally proven to be ineffective. The risk of undergoing female genital mutilation in one’s country of origin has actually been accepted as grounds for asylum in a number of countries.

The World Health Organisation defines female genital mutilation as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”

The WHO divides the practice into three main categories, based on the severity of the procedure. Type I involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris, while Type II also involves the removal of the inner labia, with or without the removal of the outer labia.

But in some cases, the procedure is even more severe: Type III, which is also known as infibulation, involves the removal of all external genitalia and the fusing of the wound, leaving only a small hole for the passage of urine or menstrual blood, which has to be cut open for sexual intercourse and childbirth.

If the bill becomes law, anyone convicted of carrying out the procedure – or who aids or abets it – may be jailed for three to seven years, and for an additional two years if the intervention results in grievous bodily harm. If the procedure results in the patient’s death, the perpetrator may be jailed for up to 20 years.

Any consent given by the persons undergoing the procedure would not justify an exemption from punishment.

People would also be obliged to inform the authorities should they be aware that female genital mutilation may take place: those who fail to seek to avert the procedure may be jailed for up to two years.

The proposed amendment also includes provisions criminalising enforced sterilisation and forced marriage.

People convicted of carrying out sterilisation “by force, deceit, bribery or threats,” would be jailed for four to 10 years on conviction, while those who force anyone to enter into a marriage could be jailed for three to five years. This truly is a step in the right direction and shows foresight by an MP with a conscience, a doctor who has seen a potential danger, a human who has truly sought to do something positive for other human beings. He deserves widespread applause, gratitude and more.