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

Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

A ship that had been dragging its anchor – Fitburg – damaged a cable running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland yesterday. The Finnish Border Guard acted with its customary efficiency, documented the dangling anchor with photographs, and took the vessel into custody.

The case will next proceed to a more detailed investigation and, in due course, undoubtedly to court. This in itself sounds good, but I would like to draw your attention, dear readers, to what happened last October.

At that time, the Helsinki District Court announced that it would not examine the charges – in a similar case – against the vessel Eagle S, which belongs to Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, nor the compensation claims based on those charges. The court held that Finland’s Criminal Code could not be applied to the case.

The matter was commented on at the time by Member of Parliament Jarno Limnéll (National Coalition Party), who stated that “clearer legislation and international agreements are needed that give states the ability to deal with acts of this kind also in exclusive economic zones and international waters.” However, no such measures have emerged during the past couple of months.

For this reason, it seems clear to me that the Fitburg incident – quite evidently a cable sabotage operation ordered by Russia – is, logically speaking, a consequence of the Helsinki District Court’s decision and the shortcomings of international legislation. It is obvious that if breaking cables carries no consequences, Putin’s administration can continue sabotaging them without concern.

It is therefore easy to predict that cables running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea will continue to be damaged – so to speak, “by accident” – in the future. And this will likely continue until the necessary provisions are enacted in international law, despite the expected opposition from Russia and its proxies.

* * *

If one wishes to see something positive in the Fitburg case, it is undoubtedly the efficiency of the actions taken by the Finnish authorities. The cable damage was investigated quickly, and the perpetrator was also stopped.

Because of the legislative problem mentioned above, the only sanction available against the ship’s owner and/or crew will likely be to look for deficiencies in the vessel’s condition, thereby delaying its departure. In this way, the crew would at least be forced to loiter for a while off the coast of Kirkkonummi.

It would be interesting to know whether the shipowner and/or its crew have made an agreement with Vladimir Putin’s administration regarding compensation for those days in rubles or in some stronger currency. The exchange rate of the ruble has recently been in a decline reminiscent of that famous cow’s tail, so the value of days compensated in Russian currency decreases over time.

In any case, any deficiencies found on the vessel must be investigated before it is allowed to leave Finnish territorial waters. And, of course, even the smallest faults discovered on the ship should be required to be carefully repaired before departure clearance is granted – to the vessel and its crew alike.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Kansainvälinen lainsäädäntö kannusti Fitburgin kaapelisabotaasiin