If they were really having zero tolerance there would be loads of cases in the news...and there aren't.

In 2010 pre-emptive action was taken in Catalonia to prevent 28 girls being mutilated, and in 2011 that figure rose to 36. Can't find any more recent figures. Plus prison sentences handed down to at least two sets of parents.

They may not be preventing 100% of cases but your statement that they are "only paying lip service" just does not bear scrutiny.

France has an even better record on combating this form of abuse.

It is about a thousand per cent more than the UK has done.

Has anything been heard yet about the imams identified in that TV programme as being willing to conduct religious marriage ceremonies involving under age girls having been arrested? Or charged? No? Thought not.

Nothing has happened and that's wrong. Wasn't that what all this discussion was about when the barmy army...the race equality unit stepped in and started going back centuries as to how there were worse things All the authorities in the UK are afraid to act because of being accused of being racist. Sound familiar.

It does sound familiar and not at all surprising, as you can see by the fall out on here.

Zero tolerance in the UK??

Not only would there be cases in the paper, but there would also be a lot of parents and enablers banged up.

Speaking as a mother of children of both sexes, the lowest form of life, is when a mother/father (but especially a mother) harms their own child, or keeps their mouth shut while atrocities in the name of culture or religion take place.

In some countires, this is considered the norm, but in the UK it is not, it is illegal.

Time for the yellow belly law enforcements to get tough, the law should be harsh go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 pound.

There is an nformative article about the EDL in ths weeks Sunday Times.
It does mention FGM and the disturbing levels that are belived to exist in the UK.
As you would hope and expect it pours scorn on the figures quoted by the EDL.
What is also states that amongs the far right many seem to focus on FGM not because they care about womens rights but because they viscerally hate muslms.
It also states that the EDL is just an extension of the historic whte backlash, whites turning on enthnic minorities in times of economic gloom.
The EDL was founded just 1 year after the credit crunch.
Any debate on " British Standards " must be as condemnatory of rascism as broadcast by the EDL and similar movements as it is of any minority who carry out acts illegal in the UK.
I do not think it matters a jot why abuse takes place whether its based on relgious grounds or sexual perversion.
The danger is that focusng on one group allows others to carry on with their
activities.
Some Imans who were mentioned n the TV program have been renmoved from their positions by the more enlightened members of their communities.
The UK is soft on these types of abuse but then it is soft on just about anything were crime against the individual and property is concerned.

I've just finished reading the article - nothing surprising there, sadly. The two morons who were sentenced last week for burning an Iranian man alive because he'd been (wrongly) labelled a paedophile by equally cerebrally challenged neighbours were most likely sympathisers.

There were a couple of rather more positive stories in the main part of the paper, though. The first being that mosques in London, Leicester, Leeds and Southampton are to run Remembrance Day poppy stalls for the first time this year, with the backing of the Government and the Royal British Legion. They want to honour the memory of all the Muslim soldiers who fought for Britain in two World Wars and to emphasise, as one spokesman said, that "Britain is our country". No doubt the extremist idiots will be putting on the usual publicity stunts designed to cause maximum public offence, which I hope do not detract from the efforts of the moderate majority.

The other was about changing attitudes in Iran, where the younger generation (60% of the population is under 30) are looking to the new President to continue the modernising influence he has begun - they say they just want "a normal life" and younger women are increasingly going about with uncovered hair which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. I've also read in recent weeks about a movement started up in Saudi Arabia for women to have the right to drive their own cars, these kinds of emerging changes will grow as long as more and more of the population of these countries have access to education, and we ought to be encouraging them instead of treating all people of the Muslim faith with hostility and suspicion because of the actions of a few.

On the other hand Turkey is moving backwards..as is Tunisia.

Re. the poppies, what took them so long

As much as I agree with the sentiment of most of your posts, the idea that Saudi women may, at some time in the future, be allowed to drive cars just shows how far these countries have to go.
Proper democracy may be a starter let alone being allowed to drive a car.

Change has to come from the people themselves. If that's where they want to start, it's up to them - we can't impose it on them. Democracy is a double edged sword - the people who end up in power aren't always the ones we, looking on from the outside, would want to see.

The encouraging thing about this particular baby step, for me, is that it's a protest movement started by women for women. In that society, that's something to be applauded.

When did that woman tie herself to the railings to get the vote for women in the UK? It wasn't that long ago, was it?

But we've come a long way since then, we've even got them on the frontline in Helmand, getting blown up.

We have come a long way, in a relatively short time - it's incredible now to think that women in Switzerland only got the right to vote in 1971.

I joined the Civil Service aged 19 - if I'd joined only about 5 years earlier, I would have had to give up my job when I got married, just as women teachers used to have to. I went to work for the Equal Opportunities Commission, just after the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act became law. One of the first campaigns we ran was to stop women applying for loans or mortgages having to have a male guarantor. It makes me feel a real museum piece sometimes to look back on how things were.

We wouldn't have all these problems if men could have babies. We can implant hearts, lungs and livers, surely a womb shouldn't be that difficult.

All those men walking down the aisle with other men could at last fulfil their marriage vows.

We've got women's equality, how about the men?

That explains some of your old clichés. The last one..."started by women for women". Now where have I heard that before

Yes we Women have come a long way but in Muslim countries...others too they are starting from a low point.

"Old cliches" is tautology - by it's very nature a cliche must be old.

Funny how you don't react in that way to your mate Me Me's emotive rallying calls to the troops about how she's only standing up for women everywhere.

You don't really like any sign of progress and harmony, do you. Mostly, you prefer a good moan about "them" and "us."