Solutions are the problems for FGM

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is perhaps the most 'wicked' problem facing governments in multicultural Western societies because potential solutions raise more problems than answers.

The NSW government has decided to triple the penalties for those found guilty of mutilating young girls. Others suggest that the answer also lies with 'education campaigns for culturally diverse communities to enhance awareness of the increased penalties and the long-term health impacts on victims.'

Those who allow their daughters to be subjected to this barbaric practice believe their actions are sanctioned by their religious faith. Educating these people to forgo their faith, put the purity of their daughters at risk, and accept the secular norms of Australian society is a difficult sell.

People with traditional, faith-based cultural backgrounds are likely to resist the push to assimilate with the secular culture that prevails here and throughout other Western countries. In fact, our hyper-sexualised popular culture (think Miley Cyrus) may encourage them to insulate their families by sticking with their traditional cultural-religious beliefs and practices.

If punishment is an effective deterrent in proportion to the risk of detection, then we immediately strike another problem. Not only will the crime be detected too late to protect girls from mutilation, but we are unlikely to generate sufficient deterrent effect short of instituting compulsory genital inspections for girls of certain faiths and backgrounds.

Profiling of this kind would almost certainly be too difficult to reconcile with commitments to multiculturalism and non-discrimination. The reaction of radical Imams and the Muslim street to such an initiative would be 'interesting,' with potential ramifications both domestically and for Australia's overseas assets, particularly in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia.

Another option is a harm minimisation approach. Allowing doctors to perform a 'ritual nick' would be safer for the victims of FGM and preserve female sexual function. Medicalising the procedure might see it eradicated over time as communities adjusted to different notions of female sexuality. But it also risks institutionalising the practice and perpetuating cultural attitudes that are fundamentally incompatible with the mainstream notions of sex, feminism, personal integrity, and the rule of law. I doubt we are willing to end our own cultural and legal traditions to accommodate FGM under any circumstances.

We seem to be dealing with an irreconcilable cultural clash. If we can neither accommodate nor eradicate practices like FGM, this has implications for who we should accept as migrants and refugees. However, a non-discriminatory immigration policy is an article of bi-partisan national faith which would be extremely difficult to revise.

Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.