Is Female Genital Mutilation a Lesser Crime Than Rape?

The Finnish police have launched the first preliminary investigations into the genital mutilation of girls taking place within well-known immigrant communities. Hopefully, the cases will be clarified and those responsible will be punished.

According to a news report on the matter, a person guilty of mutilating girls’ genitals — that is, so-called circumcision — may be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. In other words, the scale is quite broad.

For my part, I would hope that the courts eventually handling the first cases will be up to their task and refrain from applying the lowest penalties on the scale. I justify this by noting that, according to the law, even basic-form rape must result in a custodial sentence of at least one year — and surely no reasonable person can consider the permanent damage of a woman’s genitals to be a lesser act than their forced use?

It is therefore also necessary to question the reasoning of lawmakers — that is, ministers and members of parliament — who have implicitly written into law the view that causing permanent bodily harm would be equivalent to causing temporary harm. This despite the fact that rape also has lasting and serious psychological consequences — but does not mutilation, which is considered particularly brutal violence, have many times more such consequences? And does the fact that it is typically inflicted on girls of growing age not make circumcision even more condemnable?

If I were a lawmaker myself, I would have started the penalty scale for mutilation from where it ends for ordinary rapes. I would also have added to the law the deportation of the parent or parents who decided on the mutilation, if they are not native Finns. After all, the intentional damage of genital organs is an act that demonstrates complete disregard for the values and legislation of Finnish society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

Finnish Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen (PS), announced good news yesterday. According to her, the government intends to extend the residency requirement for obtaining Finnish citizenship from the current five years to eight years, and the calculation of this period will start only after obtaining a residence permit. Additionally, the acceptable period of residence abroad will be shortened from the current standard, and the amount of reception allowance and allowance for asylum seekers will be reduced.

The government also plans to add passing a citizenship test, which will be established, as a requirement for obtaining citizenship. Moreover, asylum will always be intended as temporary and as short as EU legislation allows. And in the future, it will no longer be possible to transition from an asylum seeker to a labor-based immigrant.

Furthermore, the Minister of the Interior emphasized that refugee status or asylum could be denied or revoked in the future if the individual is considered a threat to society, has committed an especially heinous crime, is suspected of or has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or an act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The asylum process is also planned to be expedited through border procedures, during which asylum seekers are not allowed to leave the vicinity of the reception center assigned to them. Additionally, a fast-track procedure is intended to be included in the Aliens Act, under which applicants who receive a negative decision can be deported more quickly than in the regular asylum process. It is intended to be applied to individuals deemed a threat to national security and to those who have submitted repeat applications.

In addition to these changes, a proposal has been prepared at the Ministry of Justice, led by Leena Meri (PS), to amend the Penal Code regarding the criminalization of female genital mutilation and its preparation. This law is significant not only on the basis of human rights but also because it reduces Finland's attractiveness among asylum seekers who intend to mutilate their daughters' genitals, a practice that constitutes a significant portion of economic migrants arriving in Finland.

Overall, the government parties intend to implement exactly the policies that a large portion of their current voters supported in the last parliamentary elections. When combined with the billion-euro cut in development aid funding, voters finally have reason to be satisfied—provided, of course, that the intentions I've outlined above are realized.

Previous thought on the same topic:
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
In Germany, immigration policy changes are being planned