A mother and former midwife convicted over genital mutilation of two young girls may not serve jail time despite being found guilty, the Daily Telegraph reports.
The mother, who cannot be named, organised retired midwife, Kubra Magennis, 72, to perform the mutilations upon her two daughters when they were only seven and six.
The women have received 15-month sentences and referrals to a home detention assessment.
Community leader, Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri, 59, was also found guilty and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for being an accessory after the fact.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Peter Johnson told the women they would have received harsher penalties if the offences occurred after May 20, 2014 when parliament raised the penalty from seven to 22 years.
The court heard the mother did not intend to have genital mutilation or ‘khatna’ performed on her remaining daughters.
‘Khatna’ is a process that involves nicking or cutting a girl’s clitoris in the presence of female elders, ABC News reports.
It has been reported that when the two girls were interviewed, the older girl, then aged 9, said she had received “a little cut down there” while her sister, then aged 6, said she had been “hurt in the bottom”.
Justice Johnson said the mother had apologised to the girls in a letter.
“Khatna has been a practice in our culture for 14 centuries,” the mother wrote.
“The courts found you were injured and I was responsible.
“I thought I was doing what was required culturally and I accept it was against the law.”
According to the Daily Telegraph, the judge said he would not sentence the mother to prison as it would “punish” the daughters who still live with her.
“A sentencing outcome that would see those children who are the victims being punished would not serve the process of justice,” Justice Johnson said.
Justice Johnson said he would also not send Magennis and Vaziri to prison because of their ill health.
The three were released on bail and will return to court on April 22.
Click below to watch a heartbreaking video that explains the devastation that is genital mutilation.
Top Comments
The mother does not intend to mutilate her remaining daughters, but I bet she does, probably not in Oz though.
I'm glad the mother will stay with the daughters as I believe it's best to keep family together whenever it is safe to do so.
What I find uncomfortable is specifically referring to these girl's genitals as having been 'mutilated'
I can understand that FGM is used as a general term for this act, but I feel for a child who will read in the papers and opinion pieces that her genitalia, a private area that many women feel anxious about as it is, has been 'mutilated'
I don't know the extent of what has been done and nor is it my business to know, but I just find this specific use of the term 'mutilated' really unfair to the victims.
By definition of the word, they were mutilated. The description of what has been done to them is not a misuse of the word or an exaggeration, and they have a right to know that what was done to them was an abuse - would you prefer a rape victim "not know" they'd been raped? That what was done to them against their will was wrong? Ignorance doesn't forgive the crime, nor does it comfort the victim.
To have been raped does not imply a permanently altered state of the body, nor does it imply that the resulting bodily condition is abnormal or ugly in the way 'mutilation' does.
I wouldn't want someone to describe any part of my body as 'mutilated' and whether it diminishes the crime in your view or not, I feel the choice of language is harmful to the victims.
It's possible to understand that something done to your body is criminal without invoking shame or a sense of brokenness.
I'm good with the word, "torture" instead.
How on earth can you know how you'd feel?