The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Revd James Langstaff, co-sponsored amendments 44 and 44a to the Serious Crime Bill, which concerned Female Genital Mutilation. He also contributed to the debate on amendment 44, stressing that the seriousness of harm done to the individual by acts of FGM was too great for it to be allowed in the UK under the principle of tolerance for alternative cultural and religious practices. Baroness Smith of Basildon the lead sponsor of the amendments concluded the debate on amendments 44 and 44a. Following the Ministerial statement reacting to the debate on the amendments Baroness Smith decided ot to press the amendments to a vote on the basis of further discussion before Third Reading.
Read the full transcript here:
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I hesitate slightly, as a male religious leader, to speak in your Lordships’ debate on this matter, but it may be important that I do so. I also hesitate to plunge into the legal niceties that have been raised so clearly by those with more knowledge of such matters. I added my name to Amendment 44A largely because of a phrase in subsection (5) of proposed new Section 63T of the Family Law Act. It states that,
“it is immaterial whether she”,
that is, the girl or woman concerned,
“or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual”.
The context for that subsection is the possibility that an operation might be justified on the grounds of the physical or mental health of the person concerned and that wording makes it clear that custom and ritual cannot be used as support for such an argument.
We are rightly proud of our national values, whereby we respect and indeed treasure the richness of many and varied cultural and religious traditions, beliefs and practices within the life of our national society. But that proper respect for a wide range of such beliefs and practices does not mean that they are all either good or commendable. It is my view that in female genital mutilation we have a practice that we simply cannot condone, even when it is done out of respect for a particular cultural or religious tradition. FGM is at heart, as has already been graphically described, an act of violence and abuse. It is one that is often associated with control—sadly, male control over women. For somebody from my tradition, it is actually an interference with our human createdness in a way that carries no benefits for health or anything else. It is, indeed, the physical removal of the potential for sensual pleasure which is part of our human and sexual createdness. The Church of England’s marriage service, or at least its current version, speaks of the “joy” of bodily union. FGM removes that possibility. For that reason and others, I support this amendment and its intent. Whatever emerges from this debate, I hope that the reference to custom or ritual will remain within whatever emerges as an Act.
(via Parliament.UK)
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.