Essays

Jewish Judge: US Can’t Ban Female Genital Mutilation

America and Europe are subject to invasion by residents of countries where female genital mutilation is a common or accepted practice.

by David Sims

MY FIRST IMPRESSION after hearing of the case of Jumiana Nagarwala was that Congress certainly does have a Constitutional mandate to ban female genital mutilation. It’s in the Fifth Amendment. A woman’s genitals are her property, just as much as her arms and her legs, of which she may not be deprived without due process of law.

The ruling of US district judge Bernard A. Friedman (who is Jewish) was so egregiously wrong that one is led to wonder about corruption, and possibly conspiracy. Whereas it is obvious that the states may by legislation also ban FGM, such a ban is surely also within the purview of the federal government.

Details of the case, quoted from The Guardian:

The decision, in the first federal case to involve FGM, dismissed the main charges in a case against Jumiana Nagarwala, a doctor who performed the procedure on nine girls, aged 7-13, from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota at another doctor’s clinic in Livonia, on the outskirts of Detroit. The prosecution said she may have performed the procedure on as many as 100 girls. Four of the eight defendants, including three of the four mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to the procedure, were dismissed in the case. The defendants are members of a small Muslim Dawoodi Bohra community. The doctors faced lengthy prison sentences on conspiracy charges.

The nearest comparison to Friedman’s ruling might be a judge deciding that the Constitution does not really prohibit slavery after all, and dismissing charges of enslavement against someone who engaged in slave-trading. Once again, a federal ban on female genital mutilation of underage girls, and of any woman without her consent, should be mandated by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Since no judge can be presumed ignorant of the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, can we assume that Bernard Friedman knew that he was doing evil when he made his ruling?

Judge Bernard A. Friedman

Since I wrote the foregoing, I’ve been told that I might have been wrong in my interpretation of the Constitution. The issue in the case wasn’t whether or not female genital mutilation is a good thing or a bad thing, but whether or not the federal government has the authority to forbid it by legislation.

Slavery is specificially forbidden by the US Constitution to individuals. Genital mutilation has not been likewise forbidden.

However, a case can be made that subjecting a child to the mutilation of his/her body, or subjecting an adult to such mutilation without his/her consent, is an act of enslavement. How can one impose such a thing on another person, except by taking away the freedom of that person? The 13th Amendment might be good enough for a federal legislative ban on genital mutilation.

The contrary idea, that blocking bans on FGM and suchlike practices, on the grounds that other people should be “free” to impose mutilation on the body parts of individuals — that it would be an unconstitutional restriction upon the freedom of the would-be mutilators — would be like overturning laws against stealing on the grounds that organized crime syndicates have a “thief culture” in which its members believe themselves entitled to steal.

So, were the mutilation of a person’s body be construed as an act of enslavement, then there would be a Constitutional mandate for federal legislative bans upon it, though the 13th Amendment.

[Of course, racially-conscious Whites might shrug their shoulders and say, “Who cares what these non-White invaders do to each other?” But permitting such practices makes our nation more invader-friendly — they degrade our nation and depress our people’s morale — and they may eventually make their way into unprotected White spaces in our culture. — Ed.]

Feminists are pretty quiet when it comes to Muslim and other Third World cultures’ treatment of women.

Feminism was started by Jewish women, and Jewish women still control it. For Jews, the rights of women aren’t really a goal. The goal is the destabilization — the downfall — of Western civilization. Accordingly, whenever women’s rights conflict with something else (e.g., any aspect of the Jewish anti-White agenda), women’s rights go on the back burner.

That’s why feminists supported President Bill Clinton, a probable rapist. That’s why feminists have supported, both overtly and tacitly (by their silence), the importation of Muslim immigrants. It’s a Jewish thing. The Jews are opening the doors of America to Muslim invaders, just as Jews opened the gates of Constantinople in the 15th century, just as they opened the gates of Granada and Toledo in the 8th century.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

Her name is Brooke Joiner: Young White Mother Murdered by Black Career Criminal in Southern Georgia

Next post

Finally, Some Real Resistance to the Establishment: Angela Nagle's Timely Call for National Labor Consciousness

3 Comments

  1. James Clayton
    November 28, 2018 at 5:28 am — Reply
  2. Pete
    November 28, 2018 at 6:29 am — Reply

    It’s not about “corruption.”
    It’s the TRIBE that this judge belongs to.
    They are sick psychopaths at their core and need to be removed from American society, NOW.

    • November 28, 2018 at 6:54 pm — Reply

      If only that were possible — as it is not at the moment. Do you think there is a chance America and other White-majority countries will eventually expel the Jews — as happened to them in the past in various European countries?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.