анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Female genital mutilation, like any forced medical procedure performed without necessity, is a crime against a person. The main problem is that it is most often committed by relatives against a legally incompetent girl. In Russia, cases of female circumcision have been recorded in Dagestan. If we try to analyze this from the perspective of the NAP, it is an assault on a person with the intent to cause injury, putting their life at risk. Circumcision is most often performed at home by people who lack even basic medical knowledge.

The non-aggression principle presupposes the protection of a person of any age. Consequently, in the Beautiful Russia of the Future, the girl’s relatives will be held accountable: either in the form of compensation for damages or via deductions from income earned in a private prison.

I believe that the position viewing a child as the property of their parents is untenable; the child and parent are in a guardianship relationship. The intentional infliction of harm on a ward is a more terrible crime than aggressive violence against a person who could fight back. At the same time, it would be logical for a court to declare the guardianship of such relatives illegal. The victim, unable to support herself, has the right to choose a more worthy guardian or to live and study in institutions maintained by private funds.

Over time, the tradition will fade into the past. Currently, it is sustained by the impunity of those performing the operation. The reason for this impunity is total nepotism in the regions where the practice is widespread. There, a child simply has nowhere to turn for protection. The police will not accept a report of grievous bodily harm because that’s just how things are done there. An independent municipal court or an arbitration court is more likely to side with the victim to maintain its reputation.

This tradition is unlikely to find support among insurers. Infection is very often introduced during female circumcision. The most common complications of such a procedure are inflammation, scarring, and difficulties with urination and the discharge of menstrual fluids. Insurers would have to pay for the treatment of every unsuccessful case. Another motive deterring relatives would be a manifold increase in insurance costs.

The damaged reputation of those practicing such atrocities could also influence the eradication of the tradition. While we currently cannot influence the security forces and clan leaders of the North Caucasus, without state support, they will have to reckon with the general law enforcement practice across the country; otherwise, people will not agree to live in their jurisdictions.

And yes, an exception is possible. If a woman wishes to obtain a certain status or respect among Muslims who adhere to such a tradition, she has the right to go to a clinic and undergo the procedure voluntarily. It is quite difficult to stop her; she is the owner of her own body.

Addition from Ancap-chan

In a situation where such a practice is widespread throughout a community (and circumcision can also be male, which is no less of a piece of filth), it is pointless to try to take the victimized child away from the parents through a court and hand them over to other relatives, as they most likely hold similar views. It is even more pointless to try to fine the parents, as they share a budget with the child, and the child, in addition to the mutilation, would be punished financially.

But upon growing up and gaining independence (and in the BRF, even a traditional society will be forced to grant a woman this independence), the woman can then pursue her parents in court for her mutilation, be branded an ungrateful beast, but uphold the version of justice that she herself shares.

The state, of course, also knows how to deal with traditional society, but such a medicine is worse than the disease. In a libertarian environment, traditional society will erode much faster and more reliably through the rebellion of individuals.