Whose Voice?: Female Genital Cutting and the Obscuring Effects of Top-Down Criminalisation

Abstract

Female genital cutting (FGC) is roundly condemned within international human rights discourse. The narrative surrounding the practice tends to categorically censure FGC in all forms. In this article, I analyse the criminalisation of the practice in New South Wales, Australia to demonstrate the dominant influence of this narrative, while also highlighting its deficiencies. Focusing on the recent Australian case of Magennis and Vaziri and criticisms of the Family Law Council’s approach to FGC-eradication in Australia, I argue that the decision relied on speculation rather than objective evidence. Further, by substituting the internal perspectives of affected communities with gendered and racialised stereotypes, the courts prevented women most affected by FGC from participating in active and meaningful dialogue. As a landmark decision, Magennis and Vaziri set a clear precedent as to how future cases are decided and how women from affected communities are to be treated: as gendered, racialised and voiceless subjects.