Are we against Female Genital Mutilation or not?

Are we, as a nation, and is our government, against Female Genital Mutilation or not? Just days ago Nick Clegg described the practice as one of the ‘most extreme manifestations of gender-based violence’. Yesterday, however, Afusat Saliu was arrested by our wretched border force and could be deported tonight, despite the very real threat that her four and two-year-old daughters could become victims of this barbaric abuse.

Ms Saliu, 31, is a Christian woman who fled Nigeria in 2011, while pregnant, after her stepmother threatened to subject her daughter, Bassy, 4, to FGM. Her second daughter, Rashidat, was born here in London. Both will accompany their mother – who was herself a victim of FGM – if she is deported later today (May 29). And there are very real fears that her two daughters will once again face the threat of FGM, she herself could be forced into a marriage or targeted by Islamic militants Boko Haram, especially since she converted to Christianity while living in Leeds.

The threat of FGM is real. Nigeria has the highest numbers of such cases of anywhere in the world (though not the highest as a percentage of population). It is estimated that 41 per cent of women have suffered 'genital cutting'.

Anj Handa, a friend of Ms Saliu, said:

'There is a risk of forced FGM on her two children if they are made to go back to Nigeria.

'Afusat is a victim of that herself. It is too late for her, but we have a four-year-old and a two-year-old and they are the "right age " for cutting from her family's point of view.'

But, reading Nick Clegg's comments at a press conference yesterday, it would seem the government is very much on her side. This is what he said:

'This is one of the most extreme manifestations of gender-based violence there is. it's already illegal here in the UK and in many countries around the world. Yet, despite this, millions of girls are still at risk of FGM. The first thing many of them know about this threat is when one day, terrified, they're physically held down and harmed. What follows is a lifetime of excruciating pain and trauma, serious health issues and, more often than not, dangerous complications in childbirth.'

He went on to say that while we should be sensitive towards other belief systems, they were not an excuse to allow such practices.

'There is a real limit to how much we should seek to understand cultural perspectives of others and the mutilation and cutting of girls with the horrific suffering that comes with it - there is no possible cultural excuse for that kind of practice. None at all.'

Foreign Secretary William Hague, who has been doing some brave and committed, though sadly little noticed, campaigning against rape as a weapon of war, has pushed a £35million DFID project to reduce FGM across the globe. His commitment is unquestionable.

Yet, we are now left in the absurd, disgraceful, situation that another arm of government - albeit one which frequently distinguishes itself through acts of callousness and incompetence - is prepared to deport a mother and her children, knowing that these two, innocent, girls, could well become the next victims of this dreadful activity.

Thus far, more than 120,000 people have signed this petition, calling for a review of the evidence so her case can be judged again. But time is running out. Her supporters fear Afusat Saliu and her family will be put on to a plane at 10pm this evening.

Pathetically, the only response from the Home Office is that it does not comment on individual cases; a phrase that now seeks to excuse authorities from responsibility for the outrages it allows.

Plots, polling and pratfalls; the Lib Dems today

In fields, alongside houses, in windows and near stations, placards proclaiming ‘Liberal Democrats Winning Here’ were dotted, er, liberally, around the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency of Tim Farron, where my family and I were recently holidaying.

I posted a photograph of one erected by a gate alongside a field – near Oxenholme station for the record:

And the tone of the reaction was somewhat mocking; replies included:

And it turned out the Liberal Democrats weren't 'winning here', there or anywhere in the European elections. They managed to hold on to one seat - just, Catherine Bearder in the South East - and their north west MEP, Chris Davies, lost his seat after polling just six per cent of the vote, behind the Greens, despite holding his position since 1999.

What the posters did, of course, was provide a clear demonstration of the tactics the junior coalition party was deploying in a desperate attempt to consolidate its position. Senior Lib Dem figures admitted to me they knew they were going to get a kicking at these elections but it was hoped that by concentrating on traditional strongholds -where they had MPs and MEPs - they might cling on to a handful of positions in Brussels.

Another aspect of the party's plan was represented by the debates with Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party (Ukip). Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg deserves some credit for trying to put forward the pro-EU argument - an unpopular position, perhaps, but one held by more people than often appreciated - and in the first debate he did pretty well, despite whatever the results of an instant poll may have found.

But Mr Clegg was appalling in the second debate: argumentative; curt and trying to sound superior. Farage wasn't going to be ruffled and, consummate performer that he is, was able to bat Clegg away. Maybe that was the moment the Lib Dem's campaign fell apart, for, as we now know, these tactics failed to return what was hoped. 

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it is hard to imagine any tactics would have resulted in a different outcome, especially, as now seems clear, the Lib Dem's second most senior figure, Vince Cable, has been on manoeuvres, with his lieutenants apparently testing the ground for a possible putsch.

Lord Matthew Oakeshott - long an irritating splinter for Nick Clegg - quit the party today after he realised he was facing disciplinary measures for polling he had done which indicated his friend Mr Cable would do better in the next General Election than Mr Clegg, if he was leader.

In his resignation statement, Lord Oakeshott warned that the Lib Dems were 'heading for disaster' with Nick Clegg at the helm, as the party had been left with 'no roots, no principles and no values'. More damagingly, Lord Oakeshott indicated that not only had he commissioned the polling, he had also shared the results with Vince Cable, for whom he has long been a highly vocal and visible cheerleader. In his statement he said:

'Several months ago a close colleague, concerned about voting intentions in Twickenham, asked me if I would arrange and pay for a poll to show us Vince's current position and how best to get him re-elected. I was happy to help, and Vince amended and approved the questionnaire, but at his request I excluded question on voting intentions with a change of leader.

'Although Vince has excellent ratings, both as a minister and a local MP, he was slightly behind the Conservatives in this poll, as the full details on the ICM website show.

'That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. The results were in the Guardian yesterday and on the ICM website. Several weeks ago, I told Vince the results of those four polls too.'

The business secretary obviously denies being involved in the commissioning of the surveys - and would obviously reject accusations of a plot. He does, though, admit being told 'in general terms what the trends were'. The Business Secretary would have known the election results were likely to be catastrophic and these polls were carried out in April and May this year; the timing is most intriguing.

Clegg's position is not good: his critics are growing at local levels on a daily basis, though not sufficient in number to topple him; and, under his leadership, the Lib Dems do, indeed, seem to be 'heading for disaster', as Lord Oakeshott asserts. But, the revelation of this cackhanded scheming - to describe it as a plot would be too generous - has oddly secured his position until the election. Likely successors - Danny Alexander (though Oakeshott's polling suggests he will struggle to hang on to his seat) and Tim Farron - hardly want to succeed Clegg before the next General Election, knowing what a dismal outcome awaits the party. And Cable, who increasingly doesn't seem to be half as clever as he thinks he is (just think of this humiliating episode with two female Daily Telegraph reporters), may well have finally burned his bridges. Presumptuous plotters rarely prosper in politics.

Will we be saying 'never again' once more? Part two

* This is an update to an article first published by Metro here

Taking a moral stance, no matter how flawed and imperfect it may be, is sometimes easier than negotiating murky political waters. Being prepared to engage militarily with a state which has used chemical weapons against its own people is the right thing to do; but rushing headlong into such a campaign while the truth of such a heinous attack has not been established as surely as possible would be reckless and a significant failure of leadership.

Understandably David Cameron wanted to be decisive over the Syrian attack. He rushed back from holiday while Nick Clegg cancelled a trip to Afghanistan, where he was due to cheer up our lads on the front. It was fairly clear the recall of parliament was inevitable. And for days, the signals emanating from the government have been that MPs would be expected to decide whether to back armed assault on Bashar al-Assad and his military. And such action could even begin by the weekend.

This is no longer the case. Weapons inspectors on the ground are still trying to verify what actually happened in the Ghouta region, east of Damascus last week. They will not apportion blame. It seems almost certain a nerve gas attack launched by the Syrian regime is to blame; but, while UN inspectors will apportion no blame, it's worth waiting a few days for confirming details.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said inspectors needed four more days on the ground and the Labour opposition indicated it would not support an attack on Syria unless inspectors were given more time.

Some, bizarrely, started to claim Labour were behaving deceitfully and playing politics with a critical situation; but very quickly, once people gave it a moment's thought, waiting a few days seemed an eminently sensible thing to do. Not waiting for the report from UN weapons inspectors did Tony Blair's government no good as they rushed headlong into invading Iraq.

So now we are left with something of an oddity; MPs are returning tomorrow to express their outrage at events in Syria, agree a humanitarian response is necessary and that 'legal, proportionate' military action may be required. 

The motion criticises the UN for its inaction over the horrors of Syria and calls for necessary time to be given to inspectors to carry out their work.

Only the most pacifist will find a word in the document to complain about. Tomorrow's debate and vote has gone from something critical into a pointless charade; there will be no British involvement in action against Syria without a further parliamentary vote.

Full clarity is unlikely to emerge. We will only ever think we know that Assad's regime was responsible for the awful attack. But unless significant doubt is raised about the identity of the perpetrator, we still must take a stand. Our values remain unmoved. Finding political excuses to avoid taking responsibility now will only lead to regret later.