Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989, was designed to protect the integrity, freedom and safety of the world’s children. It is the treaty that has mobilised the highest number of ratifications ever. It is also the most rapidly ratified human rights convention in history.

And yet, every day 6.000 young girls are subjected to brutal physical intrusion causing immediate and tremendous pain, leading to trauma possibly for life and permanently impairing their quality of life. Every year, two million young girls go through this terrible procedure.

Female Genital Mutilation. It is as bad as it sounds. The three words in themselves express a strong message of what violations the practice represents, of why we cannot accept it and of why we have to put all our efforts into fighting it.

There are traditions that oppress women in all societies. The often-quoted UN statistics still hold true: Women perform 2/3 of the world’s work; Women earn 1/10 of the world’s income; Women are 2/3 of the world’s illiterates; Women own less than 1/100 of the world’s property.

What makes genital mutilation exceptional is that it is one of the most widespread and systematic violations of the human rights of girls and women. More than 130 million women worldwide live with the consequences.

The paradox of this awful practice is that the people who carry it out believe that it is for the good of the girl. Mothers, grandmothers and in many cases whole societies where genital mutilation is practised believe that the procedure enhances a girl’s dignity and status. We must bear in mind that in societies where all women have suffered genital mutilation, there is little understanding of any need to abolish a tradition that is seen as a deep-rooted part of the local culture.

Naana Otoo-Oyortey from the organisation FORWARD, has rightly stated that: "The campaign against female genital mutilation requires sensitivity and care, however we cannot justify the practice on the grounds of culture, religion or tradition. Culture can only be valued if it is in harmony with basic human rights."

And we should add: culture can never be enforced upon any individual in the name of another person’s or society’s right to culture or religion. And especially not to the extent that this implies a direct intrusion on another human being.

Religion is not an excuse. It is not even an explanation. Where genital mutilation is practised, religion is frequently cited as a reason. But the holy books, including the Qur’an, do not contain any call for such practice. Genital mutilation predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims.

Our position is the same as that of the UN. Female genital mutilation is a serious violation of human rights. It violates the right to reproductive and sexual health. It violates the individual’s integrity and right to self-determination. It violates the very essence of the right to security, personal integrity, freedom from the infliction of pain and even – as it sometimes has fatal consequences – the right to life.

Applying a human rights perspective is decisive. The Vienna Declaration from the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 represents a milestone in this regard. It clearly states that the eradication of harmful traditional practices is a necessary part of the general work towards the elimination of all forms of violence against women. Following this, both the Beijing Platform for Action as well as the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women explicitly declare genital mutilation as a form of violence against women.

The human rights perspective offers us a wide range of tools.

First and foremost it formulates a basis for each and every girl and woman to argue for her own rights. This is a matter of worth, dignity, equality and integrity. It is a matter of the right of the girl and young woman to maintain control over her own life.

Secondly, while recognising that in this area the woman, and especially the girl-child, is rarely in a position to take forceful action to protect herself, the human rights argument underlines the responsibility of each state and each government to protect the rights and security of women and girls. Remember that the moral test of government is how governments treat those who are in the dawn of life.

Thirdly, the human rights perspective brings in the context of women’s social and economic powerlessness. Female genital mutilation is a graphic illustration of the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The violation of the right to physical and mental integrity of women and girls cannot be addressed in isolation. It must be seen in the context of systematic deprivation of women’s civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

All states that have ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women are obliged to combat traditions that discriminate against women.

All states that have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are obliged to take effective measures to abolish traditional practices that are harmful to children’s health.

All states that have ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are obliged to protect everybody – irrespective of sex, cultural background or religion – from violations of the right to security, life and equal protection of the law. The exercise of female genital mutilation is a violation of all these rights.

Let me also draw your attention to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, adopted by the OAU in 1990. It requires governments to eliminate social and cultural practices "harmful to the welfare, normal growth and development of the child, in particular those prejudicial to the health or life of the child and those customs and practices discriminatory to the child on grounds of sex or other status."

Prohibition is one tool in the work against female genital mutilation and legal measures are being introduced in more and more countries. In Norway it is a criminal offence. It is punishable by fines or imprisonment for a term of three, six or eight years, depending on the severity of the procedure. The heaviest penalty may be imposed if a woman is disabled or badly disfigured, or if she is unable to bear children or suffers severe psychological harm. Often, you will find that all of these criteria are met. Anyone who is accessory to female genital mutilation is also liable to the same penalty as the person who actually carried out the operation. Even if the criminal offence is carried out abroad, Norwegian law applies if the person who commits it or anyone who is an accessory to it is resident in Norway.

Earlier this year, the Norwegian government published an action plan to combat female genital mutilation in response to a request from the Storting. There are four main targets:

• To prevent girls living in Norway from being mutilated.
• To help girls and women who have already undergone the procedure.
• To establish co-operation with organisations and individuals, and
• To contribute to international efforts to eliminate female genital mutilation.

We don’t know to how many women and girls in Norway this applies. We know that the women themselves often find it very difficult to talk about the existence of the practice as well as their own role in this regard. We might be seeing a tip of an iceberg.

It is true that many refugees or immigrants to Europe are shocked by various aspects of Western culture. This often makes them even more determined to preserve their traditions and their daughters’ dignity. We know that girls who grow up in Norway are at risk despite the fact that mutilation is officially identified as a severe criminal offence. This shows just how deep-rooted the tradition is.

As I have already pointed out: female genital mutilation represents a paradox in the sense that despite its brutal nature it is not being performed as a hateful act. It takes place because the parents and families of the girls consider it to be in the best interest of the child.

The international strategy too must use several approaches. We must make the voices of the women involved the focal point of our work. We must plan and implement strategies that take into consideration the complexity of the problem.

To deal with a problem deeply rooted in culture, religion and tradition, we must take into account the vital and decisive role of the grassroot actors, the women and men of all groups, states, tribes, and all levels of education. Their role in this work must never be underestimated. The success of our efforts will depend on participation by all those directly concerned and by all those who have the necessary expertise.

We see a clear link between our work abroad and the efforts that are being made here in Norway, including in the exile and refugee communities. This link should be strengthened in a way that makes it possible for us to draw on our different experiences, knowledge and expertise.

Our efforts have to be concerted and all-encompassing by nature. I call on all of you present here and committed in making a difference to bring your ideas, your resources and your engagement into this struggle for the fundamental rights of girls and women.

Norway contributes financially to multilateral organisations such as the UN Population Fund, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation. All of these organisations have genital mutilation on their political agendas and are involved in practical efforts to eradicate it.

On the international arena I can guarantee you that we will continue to play an active role. Norway has supported all the international resolutions condemning violence against women and traditions that threaten women’s health.

I am fully aware that in the end of the day conventions, resolutions and declarations are not what will save a girl in danger of being genitally mutilated. However, the legal framework provides us with tools and arguments of an international nature – a framework which can provide a starting point in a strategy towards empowering girls and young women as well as laying the foundation for a full acceptance of the human body as inviolable – pure and beautiful in itself.

In our work in Norway, we have put great emphasis on legislation. Internationally too, legislation must be a crucial starting point for action. An important part of the Norwegian strategy to confront the problem will be to include the problem of genital mutilation in the dialogue with our long-term development co-operation partner countries. We can help countries where such mutilation is practised to develop legislation against it, and we will make every effort to make this a co-ordinated initiative with other donors.

The continued existence of this terrible tradition depends upon the continuation of women’s marginalized position in society and their lack of economic and social opportunities. I sincerely doubt that the tradition could persist over time in a society where women have equal access to education, jobs and political representation. I believe it is a matter of development.

It is also a matter of how society views women, and how women view themselves. In many cultures, genital mutilation is a cycle of violence in which each generation of women inflicts pain and suffering on the next. The problem can only be resolved if we can equip the women involved with greater awareness of their own position and the strength to break this cycle. Apart from legislation, education is maybe the most powerful tool.

In our efforts let us bear in mind the words of Nahid Toubia, one of the strongest spokeswomen against this practise: "Female genital mutilation is an issue that concerns women and men who believe in equality, dignity and fairness to all human beings, regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic identity. It must not be seen as the problem of any one group or culture, whether African, Muslim or Christian. Female genital mutilation is practised by many cultures. It represents a human tragedy and must not be used to set Africans against non-Africans, one religious group against the other, or even women against men."

As a South African member of parliament, a woman, once said: "Culture can never be an excuse for abuse."

"All Human Rights for All" does not allow for any exceptions. Not for women because they are not men, not for children because they are too young. Not for the poor because they lack resources, not for the imprisoned because they are not free. Not for the disabled because they are weak, not for the old because their future is short. These and all other discriminatory exceptions imply a denial of the basic worth of every human person.

We all have the same value. Human rights apply to all of us.

Thank you for your attention.