It bans "child genital mutilation" but then in the description of the act only lists things that can be done to girls.
Not sure what the point of striking out the word FEMALE was in that case since someone could still perform any sorts of male circumcision or butchery and argue that it's legal since it's not defined as genital mutilation.
The list in the bill actually includes quite a few things that can be done do males, such as castration. It also isn't exclusive, it's listing particular examples. I could argue in court that male circumcision is included.
I could see that argument -- my main concern is that it's not explicitly listed as a form of genital mutilation in the paragraph where they define "genital mutilation."
Unless I missed something, which is entirely possible because it's written in legalese.
It bans "child genital mutilation" but then in the description of the act only lists things that can be done to girls.
Not sure what the point of striking out the word FEMALE was in that case since someone could still perform any sorts of male circumcision or butchery and argue that it's legal since it's not defined as genital mutilation.
The list in the bill actually includes quite a few things that can be done do males, such as castration. It also isn't exclusive, it's listing particular examples. I could argue in court that male circumcision is included.
I could see that argument -- my main concern is that it's not explicitly listed as a form of genital mutilation in the paragraph where they define "genital mutilation."
Unless I missed something, which is entirely possible because it's written in legalese.
Yeah, generally speaking, "including" isn't exclusive in legalese, but it's up to interpretation.