Below is an excerpt from an Immigration Legal Brief by the attorney of one US based Ugandan lady in support of her:
APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL, AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE.
It can be found at:
http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=44&Itemid=80.
“Respondent V- K- is a native citizen of Uganda who seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ms. K- is entitled to relief because: (1) she has suffered past persecution and torture as a result of female genital mutilation (“FGM”), specifically forced genital stretching; and (2) she has a well-founded fear of future persecution and torture due to the clear probability that she will be subjected to further mutilation by forced genital cutting and that her four-year-old U.S. citizen daughter, G-K- , will be subjected to both genital stretching and cutting if forced to return to Uganda. For these reasons, Ms. K- is entitled to asylum under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“the Act” or “INA”) 101(a)(42); 8 U.S.C.A. 101(a)(42); withholding of removal under INA §243(h); protection under the CAT; and discretionary relief based on the extremely unusual nature of the sexual abuse that Ms. K- has already suffered, and that both she and her U.S. born daughter are likely to suffer if Ms. K- is deported.
Ms. K- suffered past persecution on account of her membership in her family and clan in Uganda that practices a form of female genital mutilation (“FGM”) known as genital stretching. Ms. K- fears further persecution and torture in the form of genital cutting because of her membership in that social group. In addition, if forced to return to Uganda, Ms. K- would be subject to extreme mental and emotional anguish rising to the level of persecution because of the clear probability that her U.S. citizen daughter will be subjected to FGM. Given her status as a single mother with a U.S. citizen daughter in a clan where patriarchal custom controls, Ms. K will be unable to protect her daughter from FGM, which she vehemently opposes.
Ms. K-’s paternal family and clan in Uganda require all unmarried women and girls to undergo a particularly gruesome form of FGM performed by the elder women of the clan. The mutilation takes place in two stages: (1) The first procedure is known as okusika or “genital stretching,” where the woman’s or girl’s labia minora are manually stretched, aided by caustic herbs, until they are the length of a grown woman’s middle finger;2 and (2) The second procedure is known okutayirila where some form of genital cutting takes place. K- Affidavit, at 24.
Ms. K- was — and still is — vehemently opposed to FGM because of her passionate and firmly held conviction that the custom is outdated, wrong, and a severe threat to her and her daughter’s health, safety and security…”
--------------------------------------------------
My question to especially our cherished ladies but also husbands, fathers and others on the forum: Immediate necessity notwithstanding, does Buganda’s long observed practice really qualify for FGM? Are Baganda behind the times?