Tolerated citizenship and FGM-safeguarding: experiences of unbelonging for those of Somali-heritage living in Bristol, UK

ABSTRACT

The UN has stated its aim to eliminate ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ by 2030. In adherence to this, many countries have introduced or enhanced legislative and policy measures aimed at prevention through surveillance and punishment. In the European context, while protecting young girls from harm is the notional purpose of such measures, political and media debates have often been framed within nation-building rhetoric: across Europe ‘FGM’ has become the de rigour signifier of the vilified migrant/Muslim Other. This paper explores the impact of FGM-safeguarding measures in relation to citizenship and belonging for people of Somali heritage living in Bristol, England. It contributes to the incipient critical scholarship concerned with the powerful but blinkered hegemonic narrative pedalled by the UN and the policy turn within Europe towards prevention-through-criminalisation. Further, it advances debates on the conundrum of inclusive citizenship considering how a policy intervention which was initiated with widespread support among affected groups and undertaken on an anti-racist platform, resulted in stigmatisation and racism. Using Anderson’s (Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control. Oxford: OUP) framework of citizenship as a ‘community of value’, the paper also contributes to the growing body of work on how citizenship is experienced and the symbiotic and interdependent relationship between status, rights and identity.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive citizenship
• female genital mutilation
• FGM
• safeguarding
• criminalisation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Hannelore Van Bavel and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Notes

1 We use inverted commas for two purposes. First to highlight the fact that as an acronym ‘FGM’ has become somewhat divorced from its expanded term which allows it to be used in situations and by actors when it would otherwise be unthinkable, and without regard by those actors for its impact (see Karlsen et al. 2019). Second in recognition that as a term its political origins lie in colonial and missionary disgust of the native Other and the current definition is also a misnomer since it includes practices that are not mutilating whilst not including mutilating practices originating in the West such as cosmetic surgery. We use FC/FGM when not referring specifically to political discourse and ‘FGM-safeguarding’ to refer to statutory policy measures. ‘FGM’ is defined by the World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation.

2 Others have observed similar political rhetoric across Europe (Baker 2020; De Genova 2018).

3 See use of these words by, for example, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London (2014), David Cameron then PM (2014), and Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London (2019).

4 Although we did not ask participants about their nationality status, given the characteristics of the Somali population in Bristol more broadly (Carver 2019) and given their own narratives and the discourse in the focus groups on citizenship, it can be concluded that most had personal experience of naturalisation.

5 Our research deliberately engaged only with those of Somali heritage but even research on the same issue (Abdelshahid, Smith, and Habane 2021) which actively tried to recruit participants from all FGM-practising countries was predominantly populated with Somalis. Evidence from nation-wide news media also suggests this (e.g. Aviram 2018; MEND, 2019; Mohamed 2017; Mohamed 2018).

6 See for example Cameron, 2014; Local Government Association, 2021; May 2014; Summers in The Guardian (2018).

7 See for example Buck in The Metro (2018); Ellison in The Guardian (2015); Evans in The Sun (2019); Onwordi in the New Humanist (2011).

8 We made a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice for further details in relation to these orders, which was declined as the material was not held centrally (Karlsen et al. 2022).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol and the Journal for Law and Society.