Criminal Enforcement in the Area of Female Genital Mutilation in France, England and the Netherlands: A Comparative Law Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The criminal justice system in Western countries is ever more frequently facing the question of how to deal with immigrants’ cultural practices, such as honour killings, blood revenges and female circumcision, better known as ‘Female Genital Mutilation’, that are considered to be in violation of human rights. Especially practicing Female Genital Mutilation has been subjected to an intense debate in the last four decades. This debate culminated provisionally in the recently adopted resolution by the United Nations, which calls upon its member states to eliminate this practice. Despite such calls, the results of criminal enforcement in banning this practice diverge in many countries. This raise the question whether national views on citizenship and multiculturalism may offer an explanation for the divergent enforcement practices in the area of Female Genital Mutilation. This study pays in particular attention to the way France, England and the Netherlands have criminalised Female Genital Mutilation and whether the results of their legal approaches in banning this practice by using criminal law, can be declared from their particular notions of citizenship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".