Written by Lori Ziganto - NewsRealBlog.com
[Editors Note: visually graphic photo - while it was one of the least graphic we could find, it is what it is, a barbaric horror and no amount of re-naming it makes it less evil]
Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics jumped right in as a contestant in the race to see who can be the most revolting, all in the name of multiculturalism and their misguided idea of tolerance. They released a policy update on Female Genital Mutilation, in which they first changed the term to Female Genital Cutting and, further, gave credence to the idea of allowing doctors to provide a "clitoral nick" instead.
Obviously, this didn't sit well with sane people everywhere and, as such, the AAP was forced to retract that policy update and issue a new update. While I am thankful that they retracted the original vile update and it was clearly the right thing to do, the underlying reasons for the original update itself are highly troubling and can't be swept away as easily as the policy was.
Firstly, the new update leaves the less offensive 'cutting' in place of 'mutilation'. Guess who can't handle the truth, as always? In the delusional minds of those on the left, particularly the elitist left, everything is semantics. Truth does not matter, as long as the Newspeak is deemed less offensive and allows them to pat themselves on their smug backs for being multicultural Citizens of the World TM.
Inoffensive, redefined words are more important to them than the actual offensive, and, frankly, evil acts themselves. Of course, evil isn't a word that is allowed to be used either, which is exactly why the sickening idea of "just a little nick" entered their semblance of minds to begin with. It didn't just happen here in America, either. The global left all have the same (alleged) thought processes; The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians is considering 'nicking' as well.
RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro said the policy would be discussed at next month's Women's Health Committee meeting.
"If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery..."
The cultural needs? The need to mutilate a girl's sexual organs? The need to commit a barbaric act? That right there is the danger that we all still face. The reason "nicking" was even discussed as an option, is due to the left's embracing of moral relativism, in particularly meta-ethical relativism. An article at Salon, actually highlighted that and the extent of the danger that meta-ethical relativism, and the left's own latent racist tendencies, brings.
As a nation of immigrants, we (in some ways like France, with its tensions over the burqa) continue to see tested the limits of liberties we hold dear; we continue to negotiate the tricky territory of embracing peoples while - in this case, rightly - rejecting their practices. And our doctors, evidently, are being asked to do exactly that in their own examining rooms. How can doctors address FGM in a way that makes sense to patients (why boys but not girls?) and educates without alienating, thus possibly helping protect that daughter from future harm? The above scenario with the Somali mother was a real one: It led to a comparable, and also rejected, "nicking" proposal in Seattle in 1996. So here we are again, revisiting the question at a national level, with doctors apparently still trying to figure out the most effective way to help protect the girls they encounter. What can we learn, this time around, about how to help them?
Yeah, no. There is no tricky territory to negotiate. Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil. The elitist left, enshrined in their ivory towers, choose to be apologists for evil behavior so that they can tout themselves as culturally enlightened and Better Than You. They explain away all wrongs perpetrated by others by trying to rationalize irrational and insane behavior. Partly, due to their worshipping at the shrine of multiculturalism and partly due to their own bigoted beliefs.
Their constant talk of "brown people", a phrase which they use that seems to encompass all but their own Ivory Tower dwelling selves, is another underlying factor. Not only do they truly believe that they are Smarter Than You and more enlightened than we hapless rubes, but they also truly believe that they are better than all those pesky "brown people", particularly non-westerners. To them, of course non-ivory, non-westerners are far less advanced and can't be expected to act in a civilized manner. Their barbarism is excused with a figurative pat on the head and a "bless their hearts."
This attitude is not only bigoted, it is a great danger. It is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" taken to an unprecedented, and deadly level. The result of this line of thought is that not only are barbaric acts like FGM condoned, but terrorism is also not only tolerated, but excused. We see this all the time in their constant excuse-making for terrorists. Excuse me, man-made disaster causers, as the Newspeak-y left would like us to call them.
This bigotry and this meta-ethical relativism is one of the largest dangers the world faces. The world must realize that apologizing for evil, violent acts is not embracing diversity. It's not "seeing both sides" nor being culturally aware. It is embracing insanity and condoning evil. Those who condone such barbarism and persist in delusional moral equivalency, like we are seeing now on a different scale with Israel and the flotilla, are actually complicit in it's perpetuation.
It must end. Never Again, indeed.