Mayo Clinic fires doctor who said female genital mutilation is an "honor" for women

Very well said, Toro. And kudos again to CGW.

All people who cherish liberty, about which Islam knows nothing, must look upon despair in defeating Islam, though sometimes understandable, as a form of self-indulgence which must be resisted. We must never give up in the fight against what Islam intends for all of us if only it can get its way. Either we win or go down fighting. There's no third option since being dead is preferable to being dominated by Muslims. Besides, we're gonna' win. Islam is eventually going down. It's too brittle, too stupid, too barbaric and too absurd to withstand the kind of scrutiny of it which has only just begun.

Agree with you. The word islamophobia is less and less effective in the general population.

HI LL!! great psot here and very easy to read and enjoyable. thank you.

CGW: what a great job! well done!! I new you were smart but I didn't know you were that smart!!!! CGW: as you may now I am in the 1950's when it comes to computer technolgy. I have the largest inbox capacity in the company that I work at! they keep increasing it as I do not have any clue how to archive them! that shows how much I know about computers! basically send and recive email!! I am the sales here and do lot of business for this company and they have no choice but to deal with it!! if I was low on the totum pole, they would let me a long time ago!!! so that end I am asking you to do the same thing for another cause if you are ok with it:

dear fellow JW readers and bloggers:
Please buy or go onlie The New York Time. there is aheat breaking story on page A23 titled:

A sanctuary Amid Fears of persecution at Home.

A group Indonisian Christians have take some sort refuge at church in Highland Park, NJ. these people are in the process of being deorpted back to their country and in fact some of them had already beet deported. they do not want to go back as they fear retaliation from the f...ing mulims harrase, killed etc.. they have applied for asylum, however our muslim friendly US Imigation is not having any of it. they gladly issue visas for Islamists and Jihadist. Persecuted christians, as long as imigration is concerned they can fo and f...themselves. the pastor is trying to help them but it does not seem to be getting any where. these people need help. CGW:
would you be willing to start a petiotn for this cause?
the name of the pastor is Seth Kaper-Dale. the name of the imiration spokeman who commented on this issue Ross Fienstien. I think this should be addressed to the secratery of state. I am not sure.

MY fellow JW bloggers: I work in NYC but I live in NJ 8 miles west of Newark. if any of you live in NJ or near by, I am more that willing to go to Newark police Dept and get a permit for a peaceful protest and also in Highland Park, NJ. please notice that I said peaceful, which means: no bombings, riots, killing etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

miriam, someone else did the actual set-up of the petition, so i can't help you there.

If you have adult children (or their friends), they should be able to help set one up. But the direct actions that you plan to take seems like great steps to me.

Whatever you do, don't give up!

(If you need help with proofreading/spelling for the petition, I can help you there. Just ask Robert for my direct email address and I'll OK him putting us in contact.)

Great! I wll ask my oldest son. unlike my middle son he is in the left, he is not PC!!! the again nither one of them are not anything like their brother who is a Marine and served one year in Afghanistan and he is camp Lejun. this son, the Matine has a whole diffrent out look. his idea is they don't like us, then f... and carpet bomb the place!!!
then I still have a 12 year old. so I am not sure as yet, what his politcal belief is yet!!!!!!
M

miriam, you must be so proud to have a Marine Sniper for a son who has been in combat; I know I would be bursting at the seams!

Per his explanation:

I don't know about you, but i just hate being viscous. I don't mind being vicious, but being viscous is just plain . . . icky!

CGW, I noticed his error too. For an American doctor who is a Fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics to formally publish the illiterate mistake of "viscous" for "vicious" (which even a beginning medical student should be upbraided, let alone a long-standing practicing doctor and jolly good "Fellow") just shows the unseamly underside of his unconscionable acceptance and embrace by so many in the American medical profession -- all based on a passive affirmative action of white Western guilt and reverse racism which is the very crux of the entire edifice of the PC MC paradigm with regard to the problem of Islam.

I think that it's pretty understandable, being that he is not a native English speaker and that he has probably encountered the word "viscous" so many times in the course of his profession. He writes extremely well otherwise.

I just found it comical.

We could always get you to write his articles for him - but then I might be the only one who could comprehend them. ; - ) (That was a wink.)

at this moment though I am not bursting through the seams. He called me a few weeks ago and siad that he is going on a misssion. where and hwo only god knows.
M

oops. Well done!

I wouldn't say he writes "extremely" well otherwise. Passably well, at best, would be a more reasonable assessment. Consider from his website, his recent defense of the recent brouhaha (and I just chose these two paragraphs practically at random, without taking more than 30 seconds to look):

"That is even so when those six million are in agreement on the desired way of life, which they are not. It is also hard to imagine how viscous human beings can become against someone they have never had any contact with, because of his position regarding a subtype of a medical procedure, or an ethnic practice.

"Despite my complete reliance on Allah and confidence that the entities they contact to see me harmed are wiser and more descent than to follow the logic of the mobs, (now with keyboards instead of axes,) I felt it necessary to explain my position to the public."

"how viscous human being can become against someone" -- even correcting the "viscous", we are left with bad English. In addition, his insertion of commas in various places is eccentric and suggests a person who is half-blindly guessing where to put a comma in a phrase (e.g., "...to follow the logic of the mobs, (now with keyboards...)").

"Despite my complete reliance on Allah and confidence that the entities they contact to see me harmed are wiser..."

Poor syntax and unclear reference to who "they" are.

"...[my]... confidence that the entities they contact to see me harmed are wiser and more descent than to follow the logic of the mobs..."

There's another "viscous" error ("descent" for "decent"); and the locution "wiser and more decent than to follow the logic of the mobs" is clunky -- even more so when it follows semantically from the preceding circuitousness.

Passable English -- for a 20-something student writing in an unofficial capacity. Less so for a doctor (and "Fellow") in the West supported and paid by Western institutions writing in an official capacity -- in defense of his reputation, for crying out loud.

We wish him all the best, miriam. He'll be in my prayers.

I am grateful for his service. I am proud of him, and of his proud Papa! Even though you are rightfully concerned and worried, he is doing something valuable and worthwhile with his life. He is an American Hero, as are all our military, and every parent can be proud of that.

CGW, when the poop hits the fan--and I'm convinced that our muslim friends won't have it any other way--I sure as hell hope that I can share a foxhole with foks like you, Dowse and The Champ. Company commander? Undaunted, of course!

Whoops, I almost forgot--I want you in there with us, too, Miriam!

Yes CGW -- and I could hire awake and Kinana of Khaybar as my assistants (to get copies and coffee), at minimum wage.

OK, LL, I take back the "extremely well". As someone who has made his share of mistakes in other languages, I guess I appreciate the difficulty in writing at the "native professional" level in English, especially when it is not your first language. What he needs is a good editor. Want to volunteer?

I caught the "descent" vs "decent" as well, but I didn't know how to make it humorous (not that my other attempt was all that funny).

I hadn't thought of it in the context of your final paragraph, but you're right, of course.

BTW, the originator of his petition has posted this at Atlas:

"What a bunch of old bitter hateful hags, willing to go so low. You all all rotten on the inside. (and Pam, your face is falling off)

Posted by: Hussam | Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 08:31 AM"

LOL, LL ! (That's a Lot of "L"s.)

I'll be there with the proverbial bells on, George!

while this is a great victory, but have a question here. anyone can answer it. do you think they got rod of this DB because he belived in FGM? or do you think that one of their lawyes said" Holly shit! we better fire him before we get sued?
M

Thanks, PGuud!

I think that the second scenario is the most likely, but who knows? They certainly needed to cover their a$$es.

woo hoo! all of in the same hole?! we are going to need a case of scotch and a box of cigars!!!!!!

miriam,

I think it's reasonable to assume your latter theory -- CTA (Covering Their Asses). That's why I say we should keep the heat on, don't let them think they can squirm out of this one without some official apology to the public they are supposed to serve and heal, and from whom they doubtless receive donations as well as government subsidies in one form or another. Not counting that their reputation remains sullied, unless they come clean fully: half-assed emails and shrouded dismissals aren't good enough. What is this, still the Watergate era for crying out loud...?

I don't think they'll go as far as you suggest without media intervention.

Initially, I contacted local, regional and national media, to no avail.

Now that a few of the blogs (Atlas, JW, BNI) have carried the story, the situation may change.

You seem like the ideal front-man for this. Certainly, we would be hard-pressed to find a more knowledgeable, articulate advocate for our position.

Countdown to CAIR involvement in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

I agree with you and CGW as well. it is sick to say the least. but we did anyways. we will take it!!!!
M

Thanks, George! ..lol :-D

LemonLime,

I was going to suggest to CGW, after reading the rest of this thread, that he give you the more modest assignment of checking for spelling errors in the writings of would-be FGM-enthusiast pediatricians. If you're busy with that, you won't be able to mess up anything important.

BTW, it's unseemly, not unseamly.

LemonLime later wrote:
"Yes CGW -- and I could hire awake and Kinana of Khaybar as my assistants (to get copies and coffee), at minimum wage."

Since LemonLime brought me into this, I'll respond: The idea that LemonLime/Hesperado would ever, outside of his imagination, be in the position of an employer with paid assistants, etc., is indeed worthy of an LOL.

What are the "lies, I wonder? Why does he not give examples?

And if all was so unjust and false, why is he no longer employed by the Mayo Health System?

Thanks, Diana Summers and Susanp!

Here's the Petition Update from the doctor's own petition webpage (Susanp, you called it):

Rumor

It seems there is a rumor on the web that Dr. Hatem has been let go. If true it would mean the Mayo Clinic succumbed to the pressure from the witch hunt that the islamophobes have created through lying and fear mongering.

Racism and injustice have been a part of the history of this country, as has the opposition to them. We may be facing a time when those who mislead through fear of "the other" have a spotlight from the ignorant and a platform from which to spew their bile, But every injustice awakens the oppressed and galvanizes the righteous a bit more.

If the rumors are true than I cannot help but be angry at the Mayo Clinic. Not because of my support for Dr. Hatem but because of the general guiding principals at stake here. The precedent they have set here is that a physician will be let go not based on their work, ethics, performance, or statements but rather on what a small group of people claim against them. That is a very dangerous precedent.

More to come...

Posted By Hussam Al-deen Petition Organizer
May 17, 2012

Check out all three tabs at the page:

http://www.change.org/petitions/show-support-for-dr-hatem-elhagaly-al-haj-and-rebuke-islamophobic-attacks#

Mayo Clinic fires doctor who said female genital mutilation is an "honor" for women
....................................

CGW, *you rock*! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your hard work on this issue. I signed the first petition, and now I have signed the one about revoking "Dr. Hate's" license.

More:

Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, aka Dr. Hatem al-Haj, is a Muslim jurist who has stated this:

The ruling on circumcision: Scholars have differed on the ruling on circumcision. They have agreed on its legitimacy for both sexes, but beyond that they have differed. Some--most famously the Shafi’ites--believe that it is obligatory for both sexes. Some believe it is obligatory for men only, and some believe it is recommended for both. At the very least it can be said that for women it is an honor, and for men it is sunnah [i.e. it is in accord with the tradition of Muhammad].
....................................

Of course, as repulsive as this is, this is not something Dr. Hatem al-Haj came up with on his own. It is perfectly Islamic, and a view held by millions of other Muslims all over the world.

More:

Longtime Jihad Watch reader CGW saw that report on Jihad Watch and sprang into action, contacting the Mayo Clinic, where Elhagaly was employed, and starting a petition...

This is a huge victory for human rights and women's rights. Huge kudos and thanks to CGW, who spearheaded this effort single-handedly and is not stopping with this...
....................................

Again, bravo CGW!

Steffen Larsen wrote:

The good Sheikh has come up with a reply to the accusation. Naturally by putting the blame on the "islamophobe websites" who have an interest in the existence of FGM (boo-hoo victimhood), while claiming that it is a practice only of some undetermined nebulous past and anyway merely a "ritual nick".
....................................

Thanks for the link, Steffen. What a weasely creep. He mentioned *nothing* about a "ritual nick" in his original speech.

The "ritual nick" is categorized as "Type IV" FGM—included with such genuine nasties as cauterizing the clitoris. But in any case, any form of "Type IV" FGM is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Type 1–III all involve excision of the clitoris.

Here's what the not-so-good doctor had to say:

It is also hard to imagine how viscous (sic) human beings can become against someone they have never had any contact with, because of his position regarding a subtype of a medical procedure, or an ethnic practice.
....................................

Yeah—how could we possibly have a problem with a "subtype of a medical procedure" that maims girls, causes them intense pain, sentences them to a lifetime void of sexual pleasure, and frequently leads to infection, fistulas, and death? I dunno—civilized Westerners are just funny that way...sarc/off

More:

I feel it is necessary to explain my position to the public.

Background and chronology

About seven years ago, I was working on my PhD thesis in Islamic law titled ‎‘The Impact of Medical Advancements ‎on Religious Edicts and Judgeship.’‎ One of the issues to be discussed was female circumcision. Around that time, there was a concerted campaign to condemn, criminalize and demonize all forms of female genital cutting, which they called female genital mutilation. I had known that the permissibility of some form of this practice is agreed upon within Islamic orthodoxy of the past. This made me set out to research the form that is sanctioned and the science behind this campaign. I didn’t find a shred of evidence that the form sanctioned by Islam, which I will call here ‘ritual nick,’ was proven by any science to be harmful.
....................................

What absolute crap. If the "ritual nick" is the only form sanctioned by Islam, then why is it almost never practiced?

Also, almost every apologia for FGM praises it as protecting Muslim women's "chastity"—how would a "ritual nick" result in greater "chastity"? It is clear that they are referring to the excision of the clitoris.

CGW wrote:

I don't know about you, but i just hate being viscous. I don't mind being vicious, but being viscous is just plain . . . icky!
....................................

Hilarious! Good to see you can keep a sense of humor about this vicious—or should I say "viscous"?—creep.

Here's more crap from Dr. Hatem al-Haj on FGM.

I watched the entire 45-minute video. there are lot of dead air and futzing around here, but here are his main points:

He objects to the term "female genital mutilation" because the term is judgmental and "poisons the well". He refers to the clitoris, oddly, as the "so-called clitoris". He claims that the clitoris is not removed during "female genital cutting".

Then he claims—as do many other Muslim clerics—that not performing "female circumcision" leads to "morbid sexual excitement"—but only because of some sort of inflammation of the clitoral hood. (Remember—this clown is supposed to be a doctor!) Of course, when most Muslim clerics mention this, they are just referring to normal female arousal, which is prevented by removing the clitoris.

He claims—bizarrely—that "female genital cutting" actually "enhances" sexual excitement, because the clitoral hood presents a "barrier". (Again, remember—this clown is a doctor!)

He refers to a Western book—Catherine Balckledge's "The Story of V"—from the '50s which claims that "female circumcision" is beneficial for women—then just mentions in passing that it refers to clitoridectomies.

Oh, and "The story of V" was not published during the 1950s, but *in 2004*. More careful scholarship. sarc/off

He claims that the World Health Organization's (WHO) big study of FGM was "falsified". How? He claims that since WHO only studied intact women, and those who had undergone Type I, Type II, and Type III, that the "Islamically sanctioned" female cutting is not studied.

He calls the study "scientific", and is dripping with contmpt when he uses the term—an odd position for a physician. He describes WHO as "proud and arrogant"—Muslim-speak for "Western and rational".

He implies that WHO's study is "Islamophobic"—although he does not use the term—rather than that this Islamically-approved "nick" is next to mythical.

You can listen to it all here:

http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/islamic-answers/women-islamic-answers/women-in-islam-female-circumcision/

graven, thanks for your exposition. Your perspective is ever-valuable and valued!

I'd like to restate what I stated above, and what you confirmed, that whereas Elhagaly previously advocated excision of the clitoral hood (as verified by the video, and by the quote below, from a Q&A on his website), he now claims to have only ever advocated a "ritual nick", which he describes as an "incision in the clitoral hood". Which is it, "excison of" or "incision in"? The two are simply not the same.

"I believe that the part that needs to be removed in female circumcision is that which corresponds to the foreskin in the male, and that is called "the clitoral hood". It was noticed that the same harmful smegma that accumulates under the foreskin of male infants does accumulate under the clitoral hood of the female."

(from http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/qa/index.php/2011/03/26/female-circumcision-2/ )

Ha! I missed that one!

It looks like our ueber-pious Muslim doctor has been doctoring his website since this flap emerged. He's now 'clarified' his views on the ritual nicking. Notice how he also labels it 'medical procedure' in one sentence. He is not correct of course, since it is not considered standard of care in medicine in the U.S. In the absence of pathology or injury ritual nicking is not a medical procedure, but an illegal and felonious mutilation of tissue per established laws of the land.

Look at the Home page categories under 'Tazqiyah', where you get a scroll down with a subcategory 'Prevention and Cure for Depression & Anxiety.' I guess he's also a psychiatric expert too or at least was until that area was expunged from his site.

Hmmm, I think this guy has been practicing way out of his scope of expertise for some time now. I bet he'll be removing and changing a lot more in the website once the medical board starts its inquiry into this complaint.

He is a classic victim of his own arrogance though. He could not resist the urge to use his medical background to advocate an illegal act or claim to be an expert in other fields of medicine outside his specialty. But now he gets to see how that kind of medical advice, however indirect or veiled as 'religious ritual', comes back to bite him.

"BTW, it's unseemly, not unseamly."

I was thinking of a pun on "seamy underside" but forgot to work it in. Of course, the breakdown between Kinana and I has reached a point where he probably would accuse me of lying about this now.

Excellent points and perspective, KofK.

Thank you!

Thanks, IP and Anushirvan!

dewdds, I too noticed the removal of articles from his website.

Here's the most interesting and glaring removal:

http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/islamic-answers/messenger-of-god/he-bpuh-married-her-at-nine-and-there-is-no-harm/

Note that you can contact him for a copy, but it's no longer readily available at the site!

I changed the above slightly, and added to it below:

My comrades above have made considerable considered points. I want to reiterate what I find to be the most glaring inconsistency with regard to Elhagaly's current statement once again, in the clearest way in which I am able. I'd like to see a response from his camp addressing this issue precisely, without scriptural [or other] obfuscation.

Elhagaly's former statement:

"I believe that the part that needs to be removed in female circumcision is that which corresponds to the foreskin in the male, and that is called “the clitoral hood”. It was noticed that the same harmful smegma that accumulates under the foreskin of male infants does accumulate under the clitoral hood of the female."

http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/qa/index.php/2011/03/26/female-circumcision-2/

Elhagaly's current statement:

"What I have stated, and is now being unfairly distorted against me, is that a subtype of Female Genital Cutting FGC, called the ritual nick, is harmless. This subtype doesn’t involve any form of clitorectomy. It is merely an incision of the clitoral hood . . ." (He misstates "incision in" as "incision of", ed.)

Which is it, exactly? The two are not analogous.

So choose -

excision of the clitoral hood

incision in the clitoral hood - a "nick"

Here is Elhagaly's latest missive denouncing our effort:

http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/

Also, please note that Elhagaly mentions a publication to back up his assertion:

" It is the position expressed by the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 5 May 1, 2010 pp. ‎‎1088 -1093‎.] . . ."

However, please see the following article:

(CNN)The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral "pricking" procedure.

"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

The contentious policy statement, issued in April, had condemned the practice of female genital cutting overall. But a small portion of statement suggesting the pricking procedure riled U.S. advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting.

In the April statement, the group raised the idea that some physicians should be able to prick or nick a girl's clitoral skin in order to "satisfy cultural requirements." The group likened the nick to an ear piercing.

On Thursday the AAP stated the group will not condone doctors to provide any kind of "clitoral nick." The AAP also clarified nicking a girl or woman's genitals is forbidden under a 1996 federal law banning female genital mutilation.

"I cried and told them how grateful I am," said Soraya Mire, a Somali filmmaker and survivor of female genital cutting. "Thank you for understanding us survivors and hearing our voices."

Equality Now, an international advocacy group fighting to end female genital cutting, echoed a similarly appreciative response.

"We welcome the AAP's decision to withdraw its 2010 policy statement on FGM," said Lakshmi Anantnarayan, a spokeswoman at Equality Now. "This is a crucial step forward in the movement to raise awareness about female genital mutilation."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-27/health/AAP.retracts.female.genital.cutting_1_female-circumcision-aap-policy-statement?_s=PM:HEALTH

Peter, thanks for some valuable insight.

Particularly striking to me was your comment questioning whether or not Elhagaly has reported cases of FGM that he has observed in his patients to authorities. He worked in a community with sizable immigrant Somali community, among whom the FGM rate is around 98%, so it would be vital to know whether or not he has referred any cases to authorities. Given that in another publication he discourages muslims from cooperating with and participating in Infidel law Enforcement

http://www.translatingjihad.com/2012/04/mainstream-american-muslim-group-warns.html

it's a valid question.

I'll pass on your other comments to Raven King. And thanks for caring enough about this issue to do continued research.

Someone noted at another site that it seems that Western males often are the most outraged at the thought of FGM. While I by no means discount the input of Western women on this issue, I think that it says quite a bit about the mindset of the Enlightened West.

You are welcome CGW. Hopefully the information is of use. I will reply to you a little more fully and provide some links in case they also help you and R.K. At the moment I have to leave for a few hours so I can't do that right now. Take care

"he [Kinana] probably would accuse me of lying about this now"

Wrong. I wouldn't make an accusation of lying unless I had specific evidence to support it. (Such an accusation would also have to involve an issue more important than a spelling error). I simply noted the error and implied it was ironic, in the context of responding to your initial attempt to take a gratuitous jab at me in this thread. You made a joking insult, I responded in kind.

CGW:

"...It is merely an incision of the clitoral hood . . ." (He misstates "incision in" as incision of", ed.)

The 26th edition of Dorland's Medical Dictionary (1985) uses the phrase "incision of" in its definition of a more unusual term in this regard -- "clitoridotomy":

incision of the clitoris; female circumcision.

(P.S.: per a previous communication I had with you, the dictionary says that "clitorectomy" and "clitoridectomy" mean the same thing.)

Thanks, LL.

To me it's still somewhat debatable, although I realize that I'm being persnickety.

I can see the point of the definition, but when describing the actual procedure as opposed to its lexicon definition, "in" still seems more descriptive and accurate. I do appreciate the information, however, and will refrain from grammatical correction of the doctor's writing in the future, to the extent that I can actually control myself, and at the risk of being "viscous".

Hi CGW, as I said earlier, I would get back to you regarding the links for the research I had done on FGM and the law. Here it is and it is all bad news for Dr. Hatem.

1)Legislation on Female Genital Mutilation in the United States

This article gives a fairly good overview of the problem while admitting that there are no published court cases yet to test the Federal and State laws. But three very important facts are brought out:

a) "In 1996, Congress passed several legislative measures relating to FGM. First, the practice of FGM on a minor was defined as a federal criminal offense, unless necessary to protect a young person’s health."
b) "the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was required both to compile data on FGM and to engage in education and outreach to relevant communities."
c) "the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was directed to provide information to all aliens issued U.S. visas on the health and psychological effects of FGM, as well as on the legal consequences of FGM under criminal or child-protection statutes."

http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf

So, it is clear that U.S. Federal statutes criminalize the practice in cases of minors and severely discourage it in the case of adults. What about State Law?

Well, each state is required to enforce Federal Criminal Law but they can also legislate and enforce their own Criminal Law.

Currently there are 18 states that have enabled their own anti-FGM legislation. Minnesota is among them. If fact, Minnesota may be the first state to have enacted its own legislation in this area.

2) 2010 Minnesota Code Chapters 609 - 624 Crimes, Criminals Chapter 609 Criminal Code Section 609.2245 Female Genital Mutilation; Penalties

This article is a snapshot of the Minnesota law as it applies to Dr. Hatem.

http://law.justia.com/codes/minnesota/2010/609-624/609/609_2245.html

3) 2011 Minnesota Statutes - 609 Criminal Code

Chapter 609 of the Minnesota Statutes deals with Criminal Code activity which specifically itemizes FGM as a crime 'against the person'.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609

The specific section 609.2245 reads as follows:

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.2245

It is quite clear from Subsection 1 of this Section that even minor medical procedures (nick) are considered criminal offenses if done on a minor, unless it is done for health reasons, where such reasons will be interpreted as preventing an imminent health risk. This is why Dr. Hatem is trying to argue that ALL FGM has a health benefit. This is a cynical attempt to squeak out of the application of the Minnesota law. Fat chance on that one. It is equally clear that Subsection 1 makes FGM a felony even if it is performed on a consenting adult.

It is small wonder that the Mayo Clinic released Dr. Hatem considering the State Law. As I read it, the Mayo Clinic may be criminally responsible if Dr. Hatem ever performed an FGM operation while under their employ. That of course would require the clinic to know his viewpoint on FGM. Once your petition hit their desk, they were screwed unless they took immediate remedial action.

4) J. Laws in Countries Where Immigrants from Countries Practicing FGM Now Reside

This document was produced by the U.S. State Department and give a very good overview of how other Western Democracies deal with FGM under their laws. This is a worthwhile read because there is a fair amount of common ground which indicates that there is a common thread of decency and sanity in western societies regarding this matter.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/9304.htm

5) Circumcision in Law

This article is only tangentially related to FGM as it relates to court cases on MGM. The point of including this article is to show that there is a possibility of serious side effects from MGM which is considered a safer operation than any version of FGM. So Dr. Hatem's contention that FGM is safe is brought into question when MGM is considered.

One important part of the article is the statement that "Minnesota, Rhode Island and Tennessee prohibit the practice of FGM on adult women as well as on females under the age of 18."

This supports my contention above that FGM is totally illegal in MN (Federally and at the State level) except as an attempt to protect the life or safety of the patient.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html

6) FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION* IN THE UNITED STATES: AN EXAMINATION OF CRIMINAL AND ASYLUM LAW

This document is a bit dated but it handles most of the relevant issues that led up to the current U.S. laws (1996) regarding FGM. Of especial interest is its report that 80% of Kenyan women suffer at least 1 serious complication after undergoing this procedure (so much for health benefits) Of equal importance is the discussion of the use of Asylum laws to protect women who are at risk of this procedure.

http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=jgspl

7) Prosecution of Female Genital Mutilation in the United States

A very short pamphlet by National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse. Among the important issues brought out in the brochure are:

a) "According to medical research based on the 2000 census, approximately 228,000 women and girls are with or at risk for FGM in the U.S."

b) "Female Genital Mutilation was put on the radar of the American public with a U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals case.13 In 1994, a 17-year-old girl from Togo fled to the U.S. via Germany, upon being forced into a polygamous marriage and told she was to undergo mutilation. Finally, after 18 months, she was granted asylum based on her “membership in a particular social group” under U.S. and international asylum law."

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/update_vol_19_number_7_2006.pdf

Anyway, that is about all I had time to find CGW. I think there is more than enough information in all of this to bury Dr. Hatem. Hopefully, you and Raven King find it useful and interesting. Hopefully, anyone else reading this post will find something of use and something of interest.

Gotta go now. Talk to ya soon CGW. Have a nice weekend.

Ooops forgot to include this one

8)

It is a relatively minor point, but "of" in that phrase does not necessarily take away or contradict the "in" action of incision. The grammatical/semantic function which "of" is performing in a phrase like "the incision of the clitoris" is something like this:

"there is an incision [in the relevant tissue] of the clitoris".

Leave the viscosity to the doctor :)

Peter, I am exceedingly grateful for all of your hard work. You are a sterling example of what this effort should be about.

Kudos to you, sir. Bravissimo!

Thanks for participating, Will.

Was "Filthy Infidel" your signature?

Hi W.D., it might not have been a good idea to word your response to him quite that way. I made the mistake (mea culpa) when I first read your post of thinking that you were calling Dr. Hatem a 'filthy infidel' while telling him to leave U.S. territory.

It wasn't until CGW asked you about the phrase 'filthy Infidel' that I caught on that you were using the phrase as irony and false self-rebuke. But there is a danger here worth pointing out to you and to the rest of the Jihad Watchers, especially those who signed the petition.

Remember Dr. Hatem has a petition that is attempting to reverse CGW's efforts by taking the stand that he was terminated due to Islamophobia rather than sound moral, ethical and legal considerations.

There will be many non-Muslims who might misinterpret your comments (as I initially did, mea culpa one more time) as indicating a personal dislike for the man and, as such, evidence of Islamophobia (assuming such a word is valid). Sooner or later CAIR is going to get involved and they are going to fight dirty as everyone at J.W. knows. So let's not give CAIR any ammunition that they can spin-doctor into support for Dr. Hatem.

For example, if your name (W.D.) appears on Raven King's petition list, CAIR is going to claim that is evidence that you signed the petition not because of your personal commitment to moral ethical and legal principles, but because you hate Islam and by extension you hate Hatem, essentially providing evidence that the premise of his petition may be correct.

Of course, it would require more than one petitioner to contact Dr. Hatem and say something that could be construed or misconstrued as Islamophobic, one or two such instances would only be anecdotal; but even if there were only a few examples, CAIR will do its best to blow them out of proportion.

I recommend that anyone who signed the petition refrain from contacting Dr. Hatem. Treat him with the disdain he deserves. Treating someone as a pariah is the harshest of admonishments because it indicates to them that in your mind they don't exist.

We did a good thing with this petition, let's not blow it with our victory dance.

Are you an attorney, Peter?

You are welcome CGW and thank you for your very kind words.

It was an honour being part of this story. This is history in the making and thanks to you and Raven King, Jihad Watchers and others have been made part of that history. That thought reminds me of Galadriel's comment to Frodo in the movie Fellowship of the Ring "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."

I intend to continue doing research on this because sooner or later CAIR is going to get involved and things will get hot for the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure that the Mayo will be represented by top of the line lawyers but the case law in this area seems non-existent so they may need all the information they can muster about FGM and the law, FGM in International Law, and FGM as a human rights concept.

If the sh*t hits the fan I will make sure that the Mayo lawyers have whatever I have come up with to help their case.

I actually hope CAIR does get involved. From what I've read so far they have no hope of winning but in losing they could lose a lot. Specifically, the case would set a precedent on a potential danger from Islam because of divided loyalties. If it goes to court and the Mayo can show that Dr. Hatem never reported the crime of FGM when non-Muslim doctors at the Mayo have made such reports, there will be convincing evidence that Islam actually does place Sharia before State law. Remember, this is an imam doing this, not a run-of-the-mill Muslim who might argue he misunderstood the difference between Sharia and the U.S. federal and state law.

It is not clear where this might lead but it might spur the FBI to use the data from large medical organizations like the Mayo to investigate how badly U.S. and State FGM laws are being ignored by Muslim medical practitioners (including Nurse Practitioners). It well may turn out that there have been no such reports from this segment of the population. This would represent criminal activity and a possible conspiracy at an unparalleled level!

Doubtless this would be a huge hornet's nest with which the U.S. Congress would have to deal. At the very least, the immigration policies currently implemented by the U.S. Government would have to be reviewed with a very critical eye. Perhaps the U.S. government would place a moratorium on immigration from Islamic countries until a complete investigation was conducted to determine whether or not immigrants from these countries really are integrating into U.S. society.

I also think the liberal left would wash their hands of this story because it wouldn't be wise for them to be arguing cultural relativism or any other of their inane rationalizations when criminal and conspiracy issues are involved. Islam in the U.S., would have to go it alone for once and that might make all the difference.

Anyway, have a nice weekend CGW. Take a rest. You deserve it.

Hi CGW, you asked "Are you an attorney, Peter?"

No. But I have worked in areas related to law. I was an Immigration Officer for the Canadian Government and I worked for Revenue Canada Taxation. Both Government Agencies provided a lot of training in interpreting statues, applying statutes, and enforcement of statutes. Both agencies also dealt with human rights and the law and determining what related statues and case law might apply when enforcing a statute.

I also have friends who are lawyers (or are retired lawyers). When I have a legal question I usually bounce an idea off them and listen as they decompose my question into its relevant legal issues. They also give me some ideas as to how to go about researching the question from a legal standpoint.

I'm usually pretty transparent about this. You may recall a recent story printed a J.W. in which a non-Muslim attorney was wearing the Hijab in court and requesting other women in the court do the same. I bounced this story off one of my lawyer friends and they explained why she HAD to do this (to help prevent a mistrial). I also brought up to Timothy Capp that my lawyer friend felt he had hidden something in his defense of Cheryl Bormann. I credited my lawyer friend with this info.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/non-muslim-female-attorney-for-911-plotters-says-all-women-in-courtroom-should-wear-hijab-to-avoid-t.html

Hopefully, by the time I make a post about something related to the law, I have done as much footwork as I possibly can. That doesn't make what I say right (legally) but it usually means I have addressed the salient issues.

Your question is interesting in a couple of ways. At one time, while at university, I contemplated becoming a lawyer and a few years back I took an aptitude test for the fun of it and the analysis that came back suggested that I become a lawyer or a systems analyst. I thought the results were interesting because I once wanted to be a lawyer and I had previously been a systems analyst (for over 18 years.)

Take care CGW. Nice talking to you as usual.

Good to know, Peter.

As for being an attorney, you certainly seem to have the appropriate skill-set for it.

Your assistance is greatly valued, my friend!

Wlll, I myself was not asking you to "take the moral highground". I can't speak for Peter. I was merely inquiring about how the message read, that's all.

I fully agree with everything you wrote.

Hi W.D. Hi CGW.

I wasn't talking about taking the moral high ground either. I was recommending that you do some thinking before taking any action that is potentially harmful to the status of the petition.

You mentioned foot soldiers and I assume you might have been including yourself in that category. Keep in mind, foot soldiers are not supposed to stir up the pot. What happened at Abu Ghraib prison is an example of the damage that foot soldiers can do if they don't think about the consequences of their actions.

I was specifically talking about NOT doing anything that will be used as part of a court case or an arbitration/mediation hearing related to getting Dr. Hatem's job back. A court can't order him back into his job but it does have ways to open the door to that possibility.

If your original comment to Dr. Hatem AND your comment to me and CGW goes before a judge its not going to be a happy situation.

If your name is on the petition and a judge believes that your post to Dr. Hatem might be indicative of an attitude held by most of the signators, there may be trouble especially if any of the signators wrote anything in the petition comments that reflected a similar attitude to the one you just expressed.

If the legal team for Dr. Hatem is any good they will be searching the Internet for everyone who signed the petition in an attempt to find out what they think about Islam. Even if the other signators have said nothing directly hateful about Islam, any slightly negative comments by them may be construed as hateful based on what you said.

How would Dr. Hatem's legal team go about arguing that? By reference to the following: " Most of the people that read this website know what a horrible and immoral ideology Islam is, so why do we have to pull our punches all the time?"

First, if the majority of the petition signators are from J.W., then your words may poison the ink-well because you have included the signators in your generalization. Also, you have implied that we at J.W. pull our punches all the time something which a good lawyer would pick up on and would argue that this phrase is a code to say that we at J.W. hide our hate when writing our comments.

Remember, whatever type of legal proceeding takes place won't be a criminal trial it will be a civil trial or something quasi-judicial. Criminal trials require the case to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Other trials use 'preponderance of evidence' as the measuring stick of a win. In other words, if there is enough evidence to show there is a 51% chance that the petition was based on hate or Islamophobia or whatever Dr. Hatem' legal team choses to call it, then the judge/adjudicator/mediator will side for Dr. Hatem. The real reason for Dr. Hatem's dismissal will get lost in all of this legal maneuvering.

It's even possible that Dr. Hatem's dismissal could get settled out of court. For instance, a pretrial judge may decide there is enough evidence to indicate that the petition was not based on fact but on hate. He could suggest that the Mayo clinic settle with Dr. Hatem by hiring him back. If the Mayo legal team thought that the pretrial judge might be right, they would probably arrange to have Dr. Hatem reinstated with a public apology from the Mayo clinic.

For more on pretrial proceedings see http://www.answers.com/topic/pretrial-conference-1

If there is a pretrial settlement, and Dr. Hatem is reinstated with an apology, what do you think the chances are that CGW's second petition is going to be favourably received? I would put it at 0 because whoever acted on that petition would open themselve to a lot of legal trouble.

Also, if Dr. Hatem is reinstated with an apology we will have gone from doing good, while gaining the public's trust to doing something bad (trying to ruin someone because of hate) and putting ourselves at odds with the public. It is bad enough that we have to deal with Islam, contending with the rest of our society at the same time will be disastrous.

Worse, everything that CGW and Raven King worked for goes down the toilet.

You said: Again, we should use their tactics against them - ignore their criticisms while continually lambasting them as Evil.

No, we should use some of their tactics against them; others we should avoid like the plague. As an example, lawfare, as practiced by CAIR, is a good tactic to use but mimicking their hateful speech is not a good practice. The idea is to win the public's confidence and trust by what you say and how you say it. Once you start with invective, you lose your audience.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Below, are two links from shows produced by ABNSAT.COM The first link is from a debate between Robert Spencer and Anjem Choudary on Stealth Jihad. I think the debate took place sometime in 2010.

As I recall the show, the debate was more-or-less civilized while Robert and Anjem duked it out debate-wise. Robert, as would be expected, crucified Choudary and then some obnoxious preacher who is frequently on ABNSAT.COM got into the conversation. Unfortunately some of his obnoxiousness just prior to the clip was removed but he did upset the host Sama Gorial prior to the clip's start. Watch the clip and see how Gorial does her best to recover the show's tenor of civility.

Now everything that Mr. Dakdok said was true but the way he said it was absolutely guaranteed to lose the audience and that was what Ms. Gorial was trying to salvage.

Unfortunately, Mr. Dakdok was so into himself and HIS 'just cause' that he totally disregarded Ms. Gorial's attempts to retain civility.

Most people watching this show who knew nothing about Islam would probably have sided with Mr. Choudary at this point. He appeared rational and refused to bite back at Mr. Dakdok, he was willing to carry on the conversation; whereas, Mr. Dakdok came across as some sort of crazy Christian extremist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhqPFRq261A

The second clip is from a similar show (round table rather than debate) in which Mr. Dakdok and Mr. Chadouray participated.

Again, watch Ms. Gorial trying to salvage the show by quietening him down. She realizes that he is going to lose the undecided public who are watching the show.

Mr. Dakdok is like a one man wrecking crew. He may have overturned any good Ms. Gorial's show did that night. You should note, as well, that he thinks he was make a point by showing that he speaks Arabic better than Choudary. This is a point and indicates he doesn't know how to debate.

I used to be an expert in ancient Greek but I would never be silly enough to use that fact as showing that I know more about the New Testament than Mr. Dakdok.

It's also ironic, because for quite some time the counter-jihadists have been arguing that the Muslim claim that you need to speak and read Arabic to understand the Qur'an is bogus. Now Dakdok, in this clip is essentially arguing that you do need to speak and read Arabic to know what you are talking about. As I said, he was a one man wrecking crew.

Dakdok does not understand that self-righteousness does not a debator makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OVZoVaL9LM

Peter, unless he decides to avail himself of CAIR's deep pockets and political clout, I doubt that he'll go after the Mayo Clinic, given that there is too much contradiction between his previously published comments and his current "clarification" statement. We have screen shots of the relevant webpages and a download of the video on his site where he recommends clitoral hood excision in order to prevent "morbid sexual excitement" and an accumulation of smegma.

Currently he's just fighting to keep his certifications.

The bottom line to all this, I believe, is that Mayo would not have pursued this course unless it was quite comfortable that its legal position was firm. That said, we know how the muslim community loves to make purported "islamophobia" the focus of everything and constantly tries to deflect attention from the real issue.

I neglected to respond earlier to a point you made vis-a-vis the reporting of FGM to authorities.

Elhagaly works in an area with a sizable Somali population; as we know, the FGM rate is northwards of 98% among Somali muslims.

It is legally incumbent upon health care professionals to report to law enforcement authorities any child abuse or evidence of previous child abuse that they encounter. It is virtually inconceivable that this doctor, presumably with female Somali children as patients, has never witnessed any evidence of this in his practice. He states clearly that he has never performed the procedure or seen it performed, but he stops short of saying that he has never seen any evidence that it is being practiced. (It is even illegal to take a child out of the country and have it performed elsewhere.) This is a HUGE potential source of criminal liability both for him and for the Mayo System. Pursuing a lawsuit would encourage further investigation of his behavior (perhaps an unintended consequence?).

Also, he is trying to cleverly dodge more than one issue with his choice of words. As one of several examples, he reiterates prior opinions published by the American Academy of Pediatrics while omitting the fact that the AAP later rescindedthat policy. Also, he states that 18-year-olds can choose to have the procedure performed, but UNH-UNH, not in the state of MN. It is illegal in this state to perform even the most minimal procedure on anyone, minors and adult women included, as I'm sure you found in your research, as one of the documents you mentioned includes that information. There is simply no excuse for a practicing physician in the state of MN to be unaware of the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.

Finally, he has corrected the erroneous use of "viscous" several times in his "clarification" to "vicious", as discussed by myself and LemonLime above, so I have no doubt that he is monitoring this thread. Thus, don't give any unnecessary ammunition to the enemy - nothing helpful to his side, that is. For anything you may deem sensitive, if you like, email Robert and request my email address. He'll email me, and I'll OK it.

Peter, you've been a tremendous help and support during this time. I am eternally grateful. You are an admirable example of human integrity.

I thank Odin for you daily! (That's just to p*** them off.)

Best Regards,

CGW

Hi CGW. Thank you for your thoughts. I certainly agree with your assessment of Dr. Hatem's legal situation at the moment.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier emails, even the 'nick' is illegal in Minnesota and constitutes a criminal offense. So Dr. Hatem, who publicly supports (recommends?) this procedure, has provided just cause for his dismissal.

Regarding the reporting issue, I had no idea about the demographics involved until just now. With a 98% Somali component to the Muslim population it is guaranteed that there has to be reporting to the Mayo legal department about instances of juvenile FGM.

In a previous email I suggested that the FBI, sooner or later will have to start an investigation at the Mayo and other large medical facilities to verify that U.S. Federal Law is being observed. Now I think that the Mayo Clinic will have to do this on its own initiative to protect itself legally.

The Mayo Clinic will have to use its first-rate database to determine how many cases of FGM have been reported in the non-Muslim doctor population and compare that to the reporting done by the Muslim doctor population. This won't infringe on anybody's civil rights because the computer will be blind to personal identities, it will only be dealing with two population groups. I suspect that the results of such an audit would raise a few eyebrows at the Mayo Clinic. I'm guessing that the Muslim doctor population may show 0 cases of juvenile FGM, an impossible figure.

At the very least, the Mayo Clinic would have to issue an advisory to all medical practitioners that reporting of juvenile FGM is required by law and their continued employment by the Clinic will be contingent upon their obeying the law. This will be a subtle way of saying that Sharia is not above U.S. Federal Law or Minnesota State Law.

If that happens, you and Raven King will have done far more good than you ever expected to do when you initiated the campaign. In fact, I'm sure you already have. The other 17 states that have anti-FGM laws have to be watching the Minnesota case with great interest. However it plays out they will make sure that they follow suit. [As I said before, you and Raven King are now part of history, even if history doesn't remember your names.]

A potential side benefit of all of this is that other states will want to frame their own anti-FGM legislation to show that they also take this atrocious practice seriously. If so, I hope the first state on board will be Michigan. It is about time that Michigan sends Dearborn a message about U.S. Law and Sharia.

Regarding your Islamophobe honorific, I too have decided to wear it as a badge of moral acknowledgement from Dr. Hatem. So, if you are reading this post Dr. Hatem, thank you for elevating me (and several others) to that exalted position. It is about time that someone recognized that Islamophobia means nothing more than doing something good for the kuffar when someone from Islam is doing something bad to them. It IS ironic that this recognition came from someone of the Islamic faith.

Accordingly, I raise a glass of wine to toast you (my last bottle too). Feel free to join me in this toast.

"Here's to you Dr. Hatem Elhagaly for understanding that the true nature of Islamophobia is based on honour and respect for Western Law and the sanctity and safety of womanhood against darkness and barbarity. May you forever be known as Taint Nick in less than fond remembrance of your abhorrent belief system that has no place in real medicine. Thank Allah that he saw fit to enlighten the Mayo Clinic so that it did the right thing where you are concerned."

CGW, I don't agree with your self-depiction as an Islamoloath. I think a more accurate honorific is Islamopragmatist where pragmatist is defined as (among other things) one who conducts his affairs in a practical, commonsensical and realistic manner. There is certainly nothing more pragmatic with respect to Islam than your petition.

Regarding contacting you, I can make that easy, my email address is mhorram@rogers.com. I have posted it at J.W. before and have no objections to anyone here contacting me. If you ever have cause to contact me I will get your email address that way.

By the way, thank you for your very kind words I appreciate them. Hopefully, I really do merit them.

Regarding Odin, that is an apt reference. He is my favourite mythical figure. Also, he was willing to risk the Aesir and Vanir at Ragnarok in order to save mankind from the hoards of evil beings bent on its destruction.

[Personally, I think if you wanted to get Dr. Hatem's goat you should have thanked Allah (unless you actually think Allah exists.)]

Now for something completely off topic. I thought you might enjoy the YouTube video below. It's sometimes a good idea to take a rest from things Islamic and vegetate for a moment. Happy vegetating CGW. Walk to ya soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DnKOc6FISU&feature=player_embedded#

Oooops! I meant to say Talk to yah soon. Now if you had been SonofWalker then my original goodbye might have been correct.