Monday, April 11, 2005



By Mark Gribben

Crime Does Pay

Imagine that you could earn nearly a million dollars for every year you spent in prison with the understanding that you would likely get out in the prime of your life. Would you take that deal?

More specifically, suppose you could live like royalty behind bars, in almost total control, with guests free to come and go as they pleased, cellphones, TV, gourmet food and fine wine to eat and drink. Would that make the deal worth 20 years of your life?

For serial murderer Charles Sobhraj, the idea of retiring to Paris and making $15 million for a movie deal based on his life made spending more than two decades in a notoriously corrupt Indian prison worthwhile. Sobhraj, a Vietnamese-Indian by birth and French national by adoption, turned a sentence for homicide in India into almost a life of leisure while at the same time evading prosecution for a dozen murders in jurisdictions that should have brought a death sentence.

He was a con man, jewel thief, drug dealer and murderer, but one who lived a life of adventure and intrigue that made him a media celebrity. He amassed enough money to bribe his captors who provided him with amenities to make life in an Indian prison more bearable. For most of his incarceration he had access to typewriters, a television, refrigerator and a large library. That's in addition to the drugs and food that he used to entertain and control his fellow inmates in the prison that was supposed to be the harshest in India.

Even more vexing was the idea that, at 52 years old, Sobhraj could walk out of Delhi's Tihar prison, sign a $15 million deal for his life story and then charge the media upwards of $5,000 an interview once he returned to Paris.

Not bad for a man who was convicted of one homicide and accused of committing at least 10 more. Some authorities believe Sobhraj killed more than 20 unsuspecting European and American tourists and pilgrims who journeyed to the Far East and the subcontinent. Some came east in search of drugs and others came in search of spiritual growth. Instead, they found Charles Sobhraj and his gang of killers.

Sobhraj wanted to create a family-like cult of sorts with himself as the father figure, says Dutch diplomat Herman Knippenberg, who spent years trying to bring Sobhraj to justice. Knippenberg said Sobhraj wanted to create "his own family of Charles Manson-like characters, with himself as the father. The ones he killed were the people who saw through his mask and who tried to get away."

Today, you may be able to find Charles Sobhraj idling away his days in a Paris bistro and for a fee he may even sit down and talk about his life.

He has slipped easily into the life of a celebrity, with mainstream publications willing to pay for posed pictures of the murderer enjoying the good life. In the words of his agent: "No money, no meeting."

The friends and relatives of his victims only hope that karma -- the concept that says the collective force of a man's actions dictates his destiny -- isn't done yet with Charles Sobhraj.


Early childhood abuse, injury to the brain -- usually the frontal lobes -- and extremely indifferent or cruel parenting are often found in the backgrounds of serial killers. But what made Charles Sobhraj evolve into a psychopath? Could the constant travel back and forth between his natural parents and the ensuing rejection be enough to drive a man to serial homicide? Recent scientific research into the minds of psychopaths provides a different theory.

"Until the psychopath came into focus, it was possible to believe that bad people were just good people with bad parents or childhood trauma and that, with care, you could talk them back into being good," writes journalist Robert Hercz. “(Noted criminologist Bob Hare's research suggested that some people behaved badly even when there had been no early trauma.")

A professor at the University of British Columbia, Hare has spent years studying psychopaths to try to address what has turned out to be a common malady. Through decades of research, interviewing and conducting experiments on some of society's most notorious criminals, Hare developed a commonly used measurement scale to determine a subject's level of "psychopathy." What he has learned is troubling.

"Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us. Your boss, your boyfriend, your mother could be what Hare calls a 'subclinical' psychopath, someone who leaves a path of destruction and pain without a single pang of conscience," Hercz writes. "Even more worrisome is the fact that, at this stage, no one -- not even Bob Hare -- is quite sure what to do about it."

Hare's research helps explain the behavior of men like Charles Sobhraj. Unlike many serial killers, Sobhraj killed for economic and personal gain. He only wanted the passports and identity papers of his victims because that made it easier for his jewel and drug smuggling operations. Sobhraj wasn't driven to kill by perverse sexual desire, nor did he get any particular satisfaction out of homicide. The people he murdered were merely in the way. They had something that Sobhraj wanted and so he took it.

“If I have ever killed, or have ordered killings, then it was purely for reasons of business, just a job, like a general in the army,” Sobhraj told journalist Richard Neville during his trial in India.

Psychopaths like Sobhraj are incapable of feeling remorse. To them, the phrases "I want to kill you" and "I want to kiss you" carry the same emotional punch. The concept of fear is almost unknown to them, so threat of punishment will never be a deterrent.

Within the psychopath diagnosis is a subdivision of behavior that analysts call "the puppet master." This class is made up of men like Charles Sobhraj, although killers like Charles make up only a small portion of the puppet masters out there.

"The puppet master would manipulate somebody to get at someone else. This type is more powerful because they're hidden," Hare said.

Industrial psychologist Paul Babiak attributes a trio of motivations to psychopaths: thrill-seeking, an almost insatiable desire to win, and the propensity to injure others. "They'll jump on any opportunity that allows them to do those things," he says. "If something better comes along, they'll drop you and move on."

In one of Charles Sobhraj's earliest encounters with crime, he once explained to his mother that he could "always find an idiot to do what I wanted." The comment came when 10-year-old Charles was accused of inducing a stepbrother to rob a shopkeeper.

Hare talks about how imprisoned psychopaths learn "the words but not the music" that parole boards and society want to hear. "They can repeat all the psychiatric jargon -- 'I feel remorse,' they talk about the offense cycle -- but these are words, hollow words."


The constants in Charles Sobhraj's formative years were abandonment and second-class status. Born Gurhmuk Sobhraj to an unwed Vietnamese woman, Sobhraj grew up feeling his parents' indifference to his existence. His mother, Song, was abandoned by the Indian tailor soon after her first son was born and she blamed him for her lover's dismissal.

His father wanted little to do with Gurhmuk during the boy's childhood, but the youngster twisted it around in his head to believe that his father was a mythic, heroic figure.

Eventually Song met up with a French officer stationed in French Indochina and they were wed. The soldier, Lieutenant Alphonse Darreau, was willing to adopt Song's son, but not to give the boy his name. Darreau was kind to Sobhraj, but as other children were born to Darreau and Song, Gurhmuk began to feel more and more an outsider in his own home. For his part, Darreau, who had suffered shell shock during a battle and for the rest of his life was in and out of hospitals for post-traumatic stress disorder, looked at Sobhraj as a drain on scarce family resources.

A child shunned in such a way will eventually do things to gain attention. For neglected children, even negative attention is considered better than no attention at all, and Charles (he took the name as a teenager after being baptized a Catholic) was no different. From an early age he was disobedient and delinquent. He was a smart, charismatic youngster, but his grades suffered and he was often absent from school.. When he did show up Charles was a discipline problem for his schoolmasters.

Living in Marseilles, Charles had access to ships heading east to Indochina and he began stowing away on them in an effort to reach his natural father. The affection Charles held for his father was not returned, however. Several times the boy managed to make it out of Marseilles only to be discovered while at sea and returned to port -- at no small cost to his mother or father, depending on who could be convinced to pay the boy's fare.

Charles bounced back and forth between the Orient and Europe, at home in neither place. The geographic cure his parents hoped for never occurred, because wherever Charles went he took his psychopathic personality. He was uncontrollable and as he reached his late teens his family became unwilling to bail him out of trouble.

When he was arrested for burglary in Paris and sentenced to three years behind bars, he went to prison, estranged from his family. Alone, without anyone who cared whether he lived or died, Sobhraj was determined to make his family and all society pay for throwing him away.

Some consider this need for vengeance a pretense.

“His claims that his life was a protest against the French legal system or that his love for Vietnam and Asia motivated his criminal career are absurd, but as tools of psychological manipulation they were very effective,” Neville wrote.


The year 1963 would be the first of many behind bars for Sobhraj, and he quickly adjusted to life in prison. It was brutal and cruel, and a small half-Asian teen like Charles should have been fresh meat for predators in jail. However, Charles knew karate and he used it to defend himself.

Poissy Prison near Paris was a terrible place. It was built in the 16th century as a convent and converted into a prison by the agnostics of the French Revolution. High stone walls separated prisoners from the outside world, and the individual cells were so small they were used only for sleeping -- during the day the prisoners were lumped together in pens sorted into groups based on their ferocity, sanity and nationality.

"It is a horror," Sobhraj biographer Thomas Thompson quotes a visitor as saying. "One enters the place and chills pass through the bones like stepping into a cellar. Each moment I am inside, I am repelled."

Sobhraj's behavior in jail was indicative of things to come. Prisoners were forbidden to keep books in their cells, but not Charles. Infractions that would have brought harsh punishments were not enforced around Sobhraj, and he portrayed himself as so pathetic he attracted the special attention of one of the volunteers who visited prisoners. The man, Felix d'Escogne, was a wealthy young man who came to Poissy each week to help prisoners with letters, resolve simple legal issues and to provide companionship. Charles quickly latched on to Felix, whom he treated as a savior and role model.

The men struck up a friendship during the time Charles was imprisoned and Felix even tried to reconcile father and son, as well as Charles with his mother, with limited success. He provided Charles with reading material, emotional stability and encouragement as the young man idled away his days in Poissy.

After he was paroled, he moved in with his friend Felix and resumed his criminal lifestyle, but he was much more adept and cautious. He straddled two very different worlds. In one, the bright world of Felix d'Escogne, was filled with work and service, and interaction with some of the best Parisian families. The other world was the darker, more sinister place where Charles Sobhraj felt at home -- the Parisian underworld.

Charles' own self-destructive behavior sent him back to jail on the very night he proposed to his fiancee. He had stolen a car and taken the woman, Chantal, to a glamorous casino. Crazed, almost frenzied wagering caused him to lose thousands of borrowed francs for which he blamed Chantal, who had put off his requests to marry him. Later, with Chantal white with fear beside him, he sped home at breakneck speed until Chantal agreed to be his bride.

It was at that time he noticed les flics in the patrol car behind them, siren wailing and lights flashing. He tried to evade the police but lost control on a rain-soaked curve and crashed the car. He was arrested and sent back to Poissy for eight months for evading police in a stolen car.

At the time of his sentencing, Felix wrote a warning to the judge, advising that mandatory psychological counseling be part of any sentence. He explained his request by listing some of Sobhraj's behaviors.

"He exploits 100 percent the weaknesses of those around him," Thompson reports that Felix wrote the judge. "He has a small conscience, if any ... is capable of politeness, but calculatedly so. Impulsive and aggressive."


Chantal was a beautiful young Parisian woman living at home with her parents when she met Charles Sobhraj at a party. Instantly she was taken with the erudite, well-heeled young man who told her of his adventures in the Orient and Dakar and his fictitious wealthy family back in Saigon.

He spoke like a poet and courted young Chantal, despite her parents' initial disapproval of their daughter's new beau. There was no way her father, a traditional French Catholic, would allow his daughter to marry a Vietnamese half-breed, no matter how rich he said his family in Vietnam was. But Chantal was smitten and when Sobhraj was sent back to prison for an additional eight months, she stood by him, pledging chastity and telling her friends and co-workers that her boyfriend had been called up by the military.

Constitutionally unable to see fault with himself, Charles blamed the world for his latest run-in with the law. He did his time quietly, but in a series of letters to Felix, he denied responsibility for his actions.

By the time he was released eight months later, Sobhraj had built up a rather nice nest egg through a series of scams. The money made Chantal's parents a little more amenable to their daughter marrying Charles and they were wed in a simple civil ceremony attended by representatives of both families.

Shortly afterward, Chantal revealed she was pregnant. At the same time Charles decided to leave Europe and head to the Orient before the life of scams and cons he was living caught up with him. He was passing bad checks all over France and it was only a matter of time before the police realized that the common link to a rash of burglaries in wealthy homes was that Charles Sobhraj had recently been on the premises.

Asking Felix, who had re-entered his life, if he could borrow a car for a day or two, Charles loaded his worldly possessions and his pregnant wife and left France. The couple worked their way across Eastern Europe passing bad paper, robbing people who befriended them and leaving a trail of crimes and victims in their wake. By the time they reached Istanbul in Felix's stolen MG, authorities had been visiting their friends in Paris, looking for the couple. In Bombay, Chantal gave birth to a baby girl.


Charles and Chantal integrated into expatriate French society on the subcontinent. Charles, the highly personable and intelligent psychopath, was quickly accepted by some of the highest-ranking French citizens in India and Chantal, an attractive and personable young woman with an adorable baby was just as welcome at the women's teas and parties.

This early in their marriage, Chantal was still blissfully unaware of her husband's thieving ways. He would talk to her about his "business," and on more than one occasion she would act as unwitting accomplice to his schemes, but for a stretch of several months he operated successfully without police interference.

During much of 1970, Sobhraj operated a stolen car brokerage operation, obtaining hard-to-find American and European autos for homesick Frenchmen and wealthy Indians with a passion for Western cars.

Charles would either steal the cars or fence stolen cars in Pakistan or Iran then bring them over the border to India, greasing the palms of greedy Indian border guards who were willing to overlook the lack of import paperwork. He would gain legitimate title to the vehicles by turning them in as stolen and buying them back at auction. Then he would sell them to grateful friends at great profit.

His business put him on the road much of 1970 and 1971, leaving a lonely and homesick Chantal in Bombay often wondering where Charles had gone. To appease her, he brought her back beautiful jewelry from God knows where..

Charles' only weakness seemed to be compulsive gambling, and this disease would result in his second serious run-in with the law and ultimately his downfall.

Charles lost lots of money at the Macao casino, prompting a liquidation of the jewels he gave to Chantal. Pawning the jewelry was insufficient to pay his gambling debts, literally putting his life at risk from casino collectors who are much more ruthless than their American and European counterparts.

Luckily, Charles was introduced to a Frenchman who had a plan to obtain enough money for Charles to pay off his debts, but also to live quite comfortably for some time.

The jewel store robbery was doomed from the start. Breaking into a hotel room above a store in the swank Hotel Ashoka in Delhi, India, Charles and his crew intended to drill through the hotel floor and drop down into the store during the night. But after three days of drilling with little progress it was clear the plan would fail.

The criminals then lured the owner of the store, blissfully unaware of the drilling going on above his head, up to the room on the premise of meeting a rich client. Sobhraj obtained the keys to the store at gunpoint and proceeded to empty the cases.

Fleeing to the Delhi airport with a bagful of stolen gems, Charles was forced to abandon his loot at customs when the store owner escaped his bonds and notified police, who sealed off the airport. Charles left $10,000 in cash and even more in jewels as he returned empty-handed to Bombay.

Bombay was too appealing to a thief like Charles. Besides, Chantal and the baby were still there so he again took up his car theft scam. Shortly after returning to Bombay he was pulled over by police in a stolen vehicle and based on eyewitness identification, he was arrested for the attempted jewel robbery at the hotel. He was taken to Bombay's prison, Tihar, and from there he staged the first of his dramatic prison escapes.

Pretending to have a bleeding ulcer, Charles was taken to a local hospital where he was diagnosed as having appendicitis, even though there was nothing wrong with him. Recovering from a needless surgery, Charles convinced Chantal to help him escape from the hospital by drugging his guard. Chantal crawled under the covers in Charles' bed and took a dose of chloroform herself to allay suspicions that she had conspired to help her husband escape.

He was recaptured shortly after, and both Chantal, whose unconsciousness had failed to convince police of her "innocence," and Charles were taken into custody. Chantal was released shortly after on bail. Eventually Charles was able to post bail with money borrowed from his father in Saigon and they fled India.

Arrests and Escapes

In Kabul, Afghanistan, Charles supported his wife and child by running cons and robbing hippies who had come east following the hashish trail from Europe. The Sobhrajs lived comfortably in Kabul, but soon wanderlust struck Charles and he took his family to the airport. He had neglected, however, to pay the hotel for two months of rent and was arrested by Afghan police.

Again he plotted an escape. In Afghan prisons, inmates are responsible for obtaining their own food by employing runners, often young beggars. If an inmate has no money, he starves. Charles had his runner purchased a syringe with which he drew his own blood and drank it, making it look like he had an ulcer. Taken to the hospital, he managed to drug his guard once again and flee to Iran.

For the next year he flew around the Eastern Hemisphere in a scattered manner, never settling anywhere long enough to arouse the suspicions of the police, although he continued to support himself by theft.

He often traveled with as many as 10 passports, some bought, some stolen, and none with the name Charles Sobhraj. Charles no longer used his given name, instead he changed identity at the drop of a hat depending on the passport he held. He would later tell police that during 1972-1973 he traveled to Karachi, Pakistan, Rome, Teheran, Kabul, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and as far north as Copenhagen.

Abandoning his family in Kabul, Charles saw his marriage end. The loyal Chantal, now with a dossier of her own in the massive Interpol database, had had enough of her criminal husband and left for France. Once there, she prayed she would never see Charles Sobhraj again.

By the time Chantal fled to Paris, the places Charles Sobhraj could travel to were quickly becoming limited. He was joined in Istanbul by his younger brother Andre -- the same person he had called "an idiot willing to do his bidding" as a 10-year-old -- who became an active participant in Charles' scams. Andre pledged obeisance to his older brother when Charles told him he could never return to France because of his criminal record, but the younger man suggested they find other countries in Europe to plunder.

Looking East, Charles told Andre he saw a world where he could blend into the crowd -- his Indian-Vietnamese heritage allowed him to portray any nationality he wanted -- and where police were more "accommodating" if the price was right. Rejecting Andre's suggestion that they return to Europe, Charles decided to return to the Orient.

Ultimately, Andre would pay dearly for his foolish desire to follow his brother. They pulled a couple of minor heists in Turkey, then fled to Greece when things got too hot and robbed a few tourists in Athens before they were arrested following a minor jewel robbery. Charles banked on the hope that the Greeks and Turks, historic enemies, would never share information about the two brothers who preyed on tourists.

Charles convinced Andre that it would be easy to make authorities think Charles was Andre and Andre Charles. Sobhraj was a wanted man, and if he pretended to be Andre -- whose crimes were minor in the eyes of Greek justice -- he could walk out of prison in a few weeks. Later, when he was safely across the frontier, Andre could tell the Greeks that he was the real Andre Darreau and that they had released the wrong man. They would then let him free.

The plan nearly worked, but when the Greeks decided to throw the book at the two men, Charles was forced to fall back on another plan. Once again feigning illness, he managed to escape from a police van taking him from a hospital to prison and he disappeared.

In a few days, Andre went to the warden and revealed that they had let Charles Sobrhaj, not Andre Darreau, escape. Sadly for him, the angry Greeks opted to turn Andre over to their Turkish enemies, who were not prepared to be lenient. After a trial, Andre was convicted of theft and sentenced to 18 years at hard labor.

The Poisoner

With his brother languishing in a Turkish prison, Charles fled eastward. He flitted around India, Kashmir, Iran and the Near East operating small-time scams and frauds. His typical modus operandi was to find a French or English-speaking tourist couple, befriend them and impress them as a mysterious, wealthy dealmaker and either use them as jewel couriers or steal their bankrolls, passports and travel tickets.

As he was perfecting this scheme he met the woman who would become his closest confidant and accomplice. She was Marie LeClerc, and she had come to the East looking for adventure. She found it with Charles Sobhraj.

Charles met Marie, a French Canadian, while she was sightseeing, and managed to convince her to return to Bangkok after her vacation ended. When Marie returned to the Orient with a satchel full of love letters Charles had written her during their months apart, she was shocked to find that he had linked up with a Thai woman named May, whom he had described as his “secretary.”

Marie's love for Charles was pathological. She was unable to see any evil in him and was even willing to put up with his dalliances. Years later, as she languished in Tihar Prison awaiting trial, she wrote to Charles (who had found a new lover): "Roong is twelve years younger than I, and fresher. You need a woman who can live under any conditions, any climate. As for me, I'm old, tired, rarely dynamic or smiling, with a bitter character that can't adapt due to my advanced age ... Roong must remain with you. The important thing is that you don't find yourself alone, that you have someone who loves you."

Undoubtedly, Sobhraj believed there was enough of him to share between two women. Somehow, Charles convinced Marie to become his partner in crime and they met up with an Australian professor and his wife who were vacationing in Thailand. Inserting himself into their lives, Charles skillfully won over the Australians who thought they had discovered a real friend. Charles and Marie served the Aussies coconut milk laced with powerful sedatives. When the couple was asleep, Charles ransacked their hotel room, stealing several thousand dollars in cash, as well as their passports, wedding rings and plane tickets.

Just as another man named Charles had done half a world away a few years before at the Spahn Ranch in California, Sobhraj began building a "family" of sorts, with himself as the head. As May floated around the periphery, Charles and Marie took in a wandering French boy named Dominique. Over a period of days Charles subtly administered enough poison to make Dominique ill with what appeared to be dysentery. Charles graciously offered the use of his home while the boy recovered. Normally, dysentery resolves itself quickly (or kills its host through dehydration), but Dominique had a hard time recovering. In reality, Sobhraj was keeping Dominique off balance to make him dependent.

Once it was made clear that Dominique was in Charles' debt, and the boy accepted his position, his recovery accelerated. As the youth grew healthy, Charles added two more young men, Yannick and Jacques, former police officers in the French colonies. Rather than poison them, he wooed them with wine and song, and while they were enjoying a night out on the town with Marie, Charles slipped away and stole their passports and savings.

Do not worry, he assured the two frantic young men, they could stay with him while new passports were procured in Bangkok. Any remuneration would be worked out later.

The final addition to Charles' circle was a young Indian named Ajay Chowdhury. As cold as Charles, Ajay quickly became his lieutenant and accompanied him everywhere. Ajay was a confidant, accomplice and co-conspirator for Charles who could be counted on to come through in even the most delicate circumstances.

The Bikini Murders

After assembling his coterie, Charles Sobhraj began to kill. There were rumors that he had killed before but for the first time Charles began leaving a trail.

His first victim was an American pilgrim named Jennie Bollivar who had come east to find herself through meditation and immersion into a Buddhist lifestyle. Instead, she made the mistake of falling in with Charles and his crowd for a few days. Why Charles murdered Jennie isn't clear, but the Dutch diplomat Herman Knippenberg believes Sobhraj killed her after she refused to join his entourage and become a smuggler.

Jennie was found dead in a tide pool in the warm waters of the Gulf of Thailand, wearing a simple flowered bikini. At first it appeared the beautiful young woman had drowned after a night of hashish and beer, but months later when an autopsy was performed, the forensic evidence made it clear someone had held her head under water until she drowned.

The next victim was a young nomadic Sephardic Jew, Vitali Hakim, who like Jennie, had come east looking for life's meaning, but instead fell into Charles' trap and found death. Vitali moved in with the entourage and stayed for several days. He accompanied Ajay and Charles on a trip to a nearby resort town on the Gulf of Thailand and, according to Charles, opted to stay with friends he had met there. Yannick and Jacques were puzzled by this, because Vitali had left his clothes in a closet in the apartment and had turned over his passport and traveler's checks to Charles for safekeeping.

Several days later, a horribly burned body was found on the road to Pattaya -- the resort destination of Charles, Vitali and Ajay. The male body showed signs of having been beaten, but it was clear to police that the poor man had been alive when he was doused with gasoline and set ablaze. Police assumed the man had been set upon by Thai bandits and slain. They did not connect this murder with the death of Jennie Bolliver.

In December 1975, Vitali Hakim's friend came east looking for him. His hotel noted that Hakim had checked out several weeks earlier and never returned. Vitali had left a message for his girlfriend, however, and unwittingly drew another victim into Charles's murderous web. Charmayne Carrou, a French citizen, turned up dead in circumstances almost identical to Jennie's death. Apparently she traced Vitali's whereabouts to Charles Sobhraj and started asking too many questions. Months later when an autopsy was performed, officials discovered that Charmayne had been strangled, not drowned, and that she had been suffocated with such force that bones in her neck shattered.

Love and Death

Two couples were Charles' next victims. Although they were separated by time and space, they would share the same horrible fate at the hands of the man who had become known to police as the Serpent.

Henk Bintanja and his fiancée, Cornelia "Cocky" Hemker, were Dutch students traveling around Southeast Asia when they met Charles Sobhraj in Hong Kong. He introduced himself as Alain Dupuis, a gem dealer, and quickly ingratiated himself with the two frugal Dutch. As a special favor, Charles sold Cocky a sapphire ring for $1,600 and invited them to his "luxurious villa" in Bangkok. He had to leave before them, he said, but would send a car and driver to meet them at the airport.

Henk and Cocky quickly met the same fate as so many others, mysteriously falling ill, and began recuperating at Charles' apartment. Charles took special care of the Dutch couple, locking up their valuables in his safe, along with their passports.

The night Charmayne Carrou appeared at Charles' apartment, Henk and Cocky were quickly hustled out of the building despite their illness. No one questioned Charles and Ajay when they returned a short time later smelling of gasoline and covered in dirt. Charles offered no explanation, but Dominique and the two former flics were becoming suspicious.

The Bangkok papers trumpeted the news about two tourists who had been bushwhacked by bandits and murdered. The man and woman had been strangled before their bodies were set ablaze. No identification had been found. The papers speculated about how the two doomed lovers met their fate for a few days until the discovery of a second drowned Western woman pushed the story off the front page.

Entering Nepal using Henk's passport, he met a pair of wandering Westerners in Katmandu. Laddie DuParr and Annabella Tremont met in Nepal and quickly became friends. Laddie had come from Canada to climb Mount Everest and Annabella was a restless California girl looking for meaning in her life. They spent a good deal of time in the section of Katmandu called "Freak Street" where anyone could buy anything from hashish to rubies. Laddie was biding his time until the weather cleared and Everest was climbable and Annabella was just biding her time.

Details are sketchy about how they met Charles Sobhraj in Katmandu, but it wasn't long before a man's body was found in a field, burned and slashed with a knife. While authorities were trying to identify the body -- it was clear it was a Westerner because of the size -- a second Westerner's body, positively identified as Annabella, was found nearby. She had been stabbed several times in the chest.

Police got their first lead when Nepalese customs reported that Laddie DuParr had left the country very shortly after the estimated time of Annabella's death. They surmised that Laddie had killed his new girlfriend and fled the country as soon as possible. They were confused, though, about the identity of the Western male who had been found nearby.

On the Run

Of course, it was not Laddie DuParr who fled Nepal after killing Annabella. Charles used Laddie's passport to fly home to Bangkok where he sold some jewels Laddie had purchased in Delhi. Then, using the passport of Henk Bintanja, he returned to Katmandu the next day. Police managed to trace the last few days of Laddie and Annabella and when they caught up with Charles, Marie and Ajay, the trio managed to bluff their way through questioning.

While he was in Bangkok, Charles had made a startling discovery. Dominique, Yannick and Jacques had put the pieces together and realized they had been under the care of a homicidal maniac. They broke into Charles' office and found dozens of passports and identity papers belonging to unfortunate tourists who had met up with Sobhraj. The three Frenchmen fled Sobhraj's apartment and Thailand, heading home to Paris. Before they left they told police what was going on in the apartment building.

On the run from Nepalese authorities, Charles and company crossed the border into India and made their way to Calcutta. They fit well in what is perhaps the most poverty-stricken place on the planet. Charles had no money, knew he was wanted by Nepalese police and could only guess what was waiting for him back in Bangkok. But he believed he was superhuman and that no mere mortal could bring him down. Charles had a plan. All he needed was a clean passport and some money.

He found both in the person of Israeli scholar Avoni Jacob who died in a run-down Calcutta hotel room where he had been drugged and strangled. Jacob's passport and traveler's checks -- about $300 in total -- were missing.

Using Jacob's passport, Charles led Ajay and Marie to Singapore. The three were so down on their luck that Marie was forced to use the passport of a Frenchman they had rolled. Charles assured Marie that no Indian border guard would know enough to question why she had been given a man's name, and he was right. Charles was always right.

And so he returned to Bangkok where he promptly drugged and robbed a rich American, stealing his identity. Although Avoni Jacob's papers were still usable, Charles had learned that it never hurt to have a spare passport. For some reason, luck was on his side, because the police, armed with the information from Yannick and friends, quickly brought the trio in for questioning for the bikini murders. It was a laughable, half-hearted investigation. The Thais were not interested in ruining their tourist trade by having a highly publicized trial.

The Dutch embassy, led by Herman Knippenberg, was adamant about having a full-scale investigation. Knippenberg was particularly driven to prosecute Sobhraj or Alain Gauthier, or Robert Grainer, or whoever this man pretended to be. The diplomat was convinced the man police had questioned was responsible for the deaths of at least two Dutch tourists.

It was not to be. Years before, Charles had told his brother that the Far East was the land of greased palms, where anything could be bought if the price was right. He proved it in early 1976 when he paid $18,000 to have a Thai police official look the other way while he and his cohorts fled the country.

They stopped briefly in Malaysia where Charles sent Ajay to the mining towns to procure some gems. Ajay returned with several hundred carats of jewels worth about $40,000. Charles intended to sell the jewels in Geneva to raise capital. But first he had to take care of one loose end.

No one knows exactly what happened to Ajay Chowdhury in Malaysia, but when Charles met Marie at the airport to catch their flight to Geneva, Ajay was not with him. She inquired as to his whereabouts but the look in Charles' eyes told her never to ask that question again. To this day, authorities believe Ajay Chowdhury, the partner-in-crime to so many of Charles' murders, had outlived his usefulness and lies buried somewhere in the steaming Malaysian jungle.


Nothing so fragile as a life built on lies can stand for long, and it was just a matter of time before Charles Sobhraj was caught. He overestimated his own intelligence and underestimated law enforcement agencies in the Far East, believing it did not matter that Thai police were looking for Alain Galtier or even Laddie DuParr. He had outsmarted them before and he would again.

But when news of a serial killer in Thailand who was killing tourists emerged in the spring of 1976, the Thais knew they had to find Charles Sobhraj. Tourism is important to Thailand, and no 300,000 baht bribe could compete with the millions that would be lost if the people were afraid to come.

So far, two American women, two Canadians, a Turk, two Dutch citizens, a French woman, and an Israeli scholar had died in Southeast Asia under mysterious and similar circumstances. Calls for justice came from nearly every embassy.

Charles Sobhraj came to the attention of Interpol first in 1973 when he was linked with the aborted jewel robbery in the Hotel Ashoka. He was not linked to the Bikini killings in Thailand by Interpol -- they were looking for Alain Gautier -- but nonetheless Interpol's massive database contained quite a detailed dossier on Charles. Sooner or later every criminal slips up and even the most intelligent sociopath like Charles Sobhraj makes mistakes. When he did, Interpol was there to see it and the long arm of the law was there to make sure he did not escape again.

Catching the Serpent

In Bombay, Charles and Marie began working their scam again. Charles rebuilt his family by bringing in two lost Western women and made a quick score by drugging a Frenchman named Jean-Luc Solomon. Jean-Luc succumbed to the poison he had been given and died without regaining consciousness, turning a simple robbery into murder.

Charles, Marie, Mary Ellen and Barbara traveled to Delhi, where Charles wanted to run a scam. He quickly latched on to a tour group of French post-graduate students and became their unofficial guide around the city. The students considered themselves lucky to have found a fellow Frenchman in such a strange place, and when he offered them a pill that he said would ward off dysentery, many took it with gratitude.

His plan was to wait until the students became drowsy from his drug and then rob their rooms, but Charles' reach exceeded his grasp. The pills worked too quickly, and all around him in the lobby of the hotel, students were dropping like flies. When someone realized that the only people who were ill were those who took their new friend's "medicine," a trio of burly students wrestled Charles to the ground and sent for the police.

It was the beginning of the end for Charles Sobhraj.

Classic police work quickly rounded up the rest of Charles Sobhraj's crew and Barbara and Mary Ellen were the first to crack. They told everything they knew.

Charles held out during two weeks of intense questioning without changing his story that he was a French merchant and an important one at that. But even he grew tired in the face of the mounting evidence that was coming in from all corners of the globe.

The Thais had a warrant, good for 20 years, out for Charles for his murders there. Nepal was interested in speaking with him about some killings there. He had escaped from a Greek jail and an Afghan prison, and the Turks had imprisoned his brother for a crime they both committed. The French wanted nothing to do with him, as he had been exiled many years before. The Indians charged him with murder, for killing Jean-Luc Solomon.

The accused were taken to Tihar Prison outside Delhi.

Tihar Prison

For Marie and the two women, the deepest circle of Hell would have been better than Tihar Prison. Classified as murderers awaiting trial, their food consisted of bread and water with whatever else they could buy. The water came out of a standpipe in their cells once a day and if they weren't ready for it, they could wait for tomorrow's ration. Rats and insects knew no fear in Tihar Prison, as the convicts were usually too weak to put up much of a fight, so rodents ran brazenly through the bars of the cells. As for toilet facilities, those consisted of a hole in the corner of the cell. Marie's cellmate was a young Malaysian girl who had been arrested and then forgotten and who was slowly going insane.

But Charles wasn't bothered in the least. He knew how things worked in India and concealed in his body were more than 70 carats of precious gems. While his new home wasn't as comfortable as his apartment in Bangkok, it would do until he decided it was time to move on. Charles had no fear of being left to rot in Tihar; he knew eventually, he would buy his way out.

Times were tough in India during the mid-1970s. Indira Gandhi ruled with an iron fist through martial law, and conditions were harsh. The judicial system was clogged with political prisoners and criminals alike. As a result, nearly two years passed from the time that Charles Sobhraj and his clan were arrested before he and Marie went on trial. In the intervening months, Mary Ellen and Barbara had each tried to kill themselves out of despair. Charles, of course, was fine.

Charles Sobhraj's trial is worthy of a story in itself. It featured the return of Andre Darreau, who, having been granted early parole by the Turks, unbelievably traveled to India at Charles' request to help him escape. There was a mid-trial appeal to the Indian Supreme Court and a witness (Mary Ellen) recanting her statement of seeing Charles drug Jean-Luc. Sobhraj hired and fired lawyers at will and toward the end of the trial went on a hunger strike to protest the inhuman conditions at Tihar. He ended up defending himself.

The judge, however, was unimpressed with the theatrics and found Charles guilty of administering drugs with intent to rob, causing hurt to commit robbery and the Indian equivalent to manslaughter -- culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Marie was found not guilty, but was returned to Tihar to await trial in the poisoning of the French graduate students. She would eventually serve some time for that crime and be released on mercy parole when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She died at home in Canada, professing her love for the man who had ruined her life.

Charles faced the death penalty, and the prosecution argued strenuously for just that. It was well-known that he had killed many besides Jean-Luc Solomon, and that he undoubtedly would kill again. But Charles argued that time served in Tihar was punishment enough.

Did Charles manage to buy off the judge? That isn't known, but it is certainly a possibility. Around the world, law enforcement officials were astounded when the judge sentenced Charles Sobhraj to seven years in prison. The Serpent had emerged victorious once again.


Charles was also convicted in connection with the abortive attempt to rob the French tourists and that 5-year sentence added to his seven-year term. The sentence, while obviously better than death, presented a problem for Sobhraj. The warrant from Thailand was good for 20 years, which meant that as soon as he was done serving his hitch in Tihar, he would be deported and very likely executed.

Twelve years would be enough time for witnesses to disappear or prosecutors to lose interest. But escape from Tihar, an easy feat for a man like the Serpent, meant he would be an international criminal and a wanted man. He needed a plan and had a few years to come up with a good one.

Biding his time, Charles literally ran Tihar. He wanted for almost nothing and counted both guards and prisoners as his friends. In fact, as he was finishing his 10th year behind bars, he threw a party for his friends. This time, it didn't matter when the sleeping pills took effect, and in the middle of his party, as cons and guards alike passed out from the drugs, Charles Sobhraj walked out of the jail.

He later said it wasn't his plan to flee the subcontinent, he just wasn't ready to leave Tihar yet and wanted to stay a few more years. So he arranged to be caught and was sentenced for the drug assault and escape. His gamble paid off. Over time, authorities around the world forgot about Charles Sobhraj and the case against him in Bangkok eventually withered away as witnesses died or evidence was lost.

On February 17, 1997, the Serpent walked out of Tihar Prison. He was in the prime of life, 52 years old. There was little chance that Thai officials could make a case against him so many years later, but Charles was a man without a country. He was to be deported from India, so he was kept in custody until authorities found a country that would take him.

In the end, he returned to France where today he charges reporters for interviews. In March 2002 an Indian film company announced that it was making a film about his life. The project is not exactly a Sobhraj biography "because we have taken some creative liberties, and because it’s not an exact biography of his life," the assistant director told Nihar Online, an Indian Web-based newspaper. ”The film will in no way glorify a killer. It is instead a question of man, morality and redemption."

The idea of redemption remains questionable. Several years into his incarceration in India, Charles was interviewed by an Australian writer. Vowing never to repeat his past mistakes, he stopped short of saying he would never kill again.

"I have already taken from the past what is best for me, what helps me live in the present and prepare for the future," he told Richard Neville. "If I play back a murder, it will be to see what I have learned from the method. I won't even notice the body."


Hare, Robert D. February 1996. “Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion” Psychiatric Times Vol. XIII Issue 2.

Hall, Angus, ed. 1974 “Interpol” Crimes and Punishment. London: Symphonette Press.

Hercz, Robert. Sept. 8, 2001. “Psychopaths Among Us.” Saturday Night Magazine.

Mazumdar, Sudip. Nov. 1981. “Prison Conditions Case Study: Tihar, Delhi” PUCL Bulletin. Delhi, India: People's Union for Civil Liberties.

McGirk, Tim. March 3, 1997. “His Greatest Escape.” Time.

Neville, Richard and Julie Clarke. 1979. The Life and Crimes of Charles Sobhraj. Sydney, Australia: Jonathan Cape.

Sarin, Ritu. June 1, 1997. “Clandestine in Paris: New Life and Better Times of Sobhraj.” Indian Express Newspapers.

Thompson, Thomas. 1979 Serpentine. New York: Carroll & Graph.

Comment posted by morisjohn26020982
at 5/2/2006 5:32:00 PM
While you read this, YOU start to BECOME aware of your surroundings, CERTIAN things that you were not aware of such as the temperature of the room, and sounds may make YOU realize you WANT a real college degree.

Call this number now, (413) 208-3069

Get an unexplained feeling of joy, Make it last longer by getting your COLLEGE DEGREE. Just as sure as the sun is coming up tomorrow, these College Degree's come complete with transcripts, and are VERIFIABLE.

You know THAT Corporate America takes advantage of loopholes in the system. ITS now YOUR turn to take advantage of this specific opportunity, Take a second, Get a BETTER FEELING of joy and a better future BY CALLING this number 24 hours a day.
(413) 208-3069

Comment posted by arnoldammons1207
at 12/28/2005 11:25:00 AM
I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. My blog is just about my day to day life, as a park ranger. So please Click Here To Read My Blog

Comment posted by lisaerickson25307762
at 12/23/2005 7:37:00 AM
Make no mistake: Our mission at Tip Top Equities is to sift through the thousands of underperforming companies out there to find the golden needle in the haystack. A stock worthy of your investment. A stock with the potential for big returns. More often than not, the stocks we profile show a significant increase in stock price, sometimes in days, not months or years. We have come across what we feel is one of those rare deals that the public has not heard about yet. Read on to find out more.

Nano Superlattice Technology Inc. (OTCBB Symbol: NSLT) is a nanotechnology company engaged in the coating of tools and components with nano structured PVD coatings for high-tech industries.

Nano utilizes Arc Bond Sputtering and Superlattice technology to apply multi-layers of super-hard elemental coatings on an array of precision products to achieve a variety of physical properties. The application of the coating on industrial products is designed to change their physical properties, improving a product's durability, resistance, chemical and physical characteristics as well as performance. Nano's super-hard alloy coating materials were especially developed for printed circuit board drills in response to special market requirements

The cutting of circuit boards causes severe wear on the cutting edge of drills and routers. With the increased miniaturization of personal electronics devices the dimensions of holes and cut aways are currently less than 0.2 mm. Nano coats tools with an ultra thin coating (only a few nanometers in thickness) of nitrides which can have a hardness of up to half that of diamond. This has proven to increase tool life by almost ten times. Nano plans to continue research and development into these techniques due to the vast application range for this type of nanotechnology

We believe that Nano is a company on the move. With today�s steady move towards miniaturization we feel that Nano is a company with the right product at the right time. It is our opinion that an investment in Nano will produce great returns for our readers.

Online Stock trading, in the New York Stock Exchange, and Toronto Stock Exchange, or any other stock market requires many hours of stock research. Always consult a stock broker for stock prices of penny stocks, and always seek proper free stock advice, as well as read a stock chart. This is not encouragement to buy stock, but merely a possible hot stock pick. Get a live stock market quote, before making a stock investment or participating in the stock market game or buying or selling a stock option.

Thursday, April 7, 2005

Kiran Bedi

Kiran Bedi is a trailblazer, admired and loved by many in India. She broke new ground by joining the élite Indian Police Service in 1972, the first woman in India to do so. Her humane and fearless approach has contributed greatly to innumerable innovative policing and prison reforms. She is today the most celebrated police officer, having been awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award for government service, also called the Asian Nobel Prize, the Joseph Beuys Award by a German foundation and the Asia Region Award for Drug Prevention & Control by the International Organization of Good Templars (IOGT) a Norwegian organization. Besides her professional contributions, two voluntary organizations founded and supervised by her — Navjyoti, set up in 1988 and India Vision Foundation in 1994, reach out to thousands of poor children daily for primary education; women for adult literacy; provide vocational training and counseling services in the slums, rural areas and inside the prison apart from treatment for drug addiction. She and her organizations today stand nationally and internationally recognized, with the latest award being given by the United Nations —the Serge Sotiroff Memorial Award for drug abuse prevention. Born into an extraordinary family with visionary parents, Kiran is the second of four daughters. She has been an Asian Tennis Champion, holds a law degree, has a Doctorate in the field of drug abuse and domestic violence, is an author and subject of various books and films.She is today a very sought after inspirational speaker in India and abroad.

Edward de Bono

Edward de Bono is regarded by many to be the leading authority in the world in the field of creative thinking and the direct teaching of thinking as a skill. He has written 62 books with translations into 37 languages and has been invited to lecture in 54 countries. He is the originator of lateral thinking which treats creativity as the behaviour of information in a self-organising information system - such as the neural networks in the brain. From such a consideration arise the deliberate and formal tools of lateral thinking, parallel thinking etc.

Rationalising circumcision

Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation

S K Hellsten

Despite global and local attempts to end genital mutilation, in their various forms, whether of males or females, the practice has persisted throughout human history in most parts of the world. Various medical, scientific, hygienic, aesthetic, religious, and cultural reasons have been used to justify it. In this symposium on circumcision, against the background of the other articles by Hutson, Short, and Viens, the practice is set by the author within a wider, global context by discussing a range of rationalisations used to support different types of genital mutilation throughout time and across the globe. It is argued that in most cases the rationalisations invented to provide support for continuing the practice of genital mutilation—whether male or female—within various cultural and religious settings have very little to do with finding a critical and reflective moral justification for these practices. In order to question the ethical acceptability of the practice in its non-therapeutic forms, we need to focus on child rights protection.

Despite global and local attempts to end genital mutilations, in their various forms, whether of males or females, the practice has persisted throughout human history in most parts of the world. Today both male and female genital mutilation are particularly common in poor, developing countries with wide traditional communities, but these practices have also been maintained in many modern Western multicultural societies. This is particularly the case with male circumcision, which in many parts of the Western world is still practised almost routinely, as the articles by Hutson, Short, and Viens on the justification of male circumcision in this journal, show.

Short and Hutson focus more on scientific, medical, and public health aspects while Viens discusses the issue of religious freedom and identity. More precisely, Hutson analyses whether the public health argument holds water in justifying male circumcision as a routine operation in relation to its health related consequences (whether these are negative or positive). Short's commentary on Hutson defends male circumcision on the basis of medical evidence that the procedure (on males) has been scientifically proven to improve both male and female reproductive health. Short goes as far as suggesting that we might have some kind of duty to develop better procedures to make the operation the ``kindest cut of all''. Viens, on the other hand, argues for the justification of male circumcision on the basis of individual freedom. Rather than speaking for the right of an individual to make his or her own autonomous choices, however, Viens draws his arguments from the parents' right to decide what is best for their children as well as from the parents' religious freedom to choose the (religious) identity of, and for, their children. While Hutson is the most hesitant of these three authors to defend the general benefits of the operation, none of these articles directly argues against male genital mutilation. While Viens is most sensitive to religious freedom and cultural identity, none of the authors discuss in detail the different cultural, social,and economic contexts of these values and practices across the globe. Instead, all the above mentioned authors keep their discussion almost exclusively within the framework of Western medicine and a pluralist society. While, albeit briefly, supporting other cultures' rights to maintain their religious identities, Viens is even willing to offer Western assistance in developing less painful and medically safer practices for the operation on children elsewhere in the world. In this symposium, and against the background of the articles by these three authors, I have taken it as my task to set this discussion on the justification of male circumcision within a wider, global context. I want to discuss how we find a range of rationalisations to support various types of genital mutilation and to evaluate whether these rationalisations have anything to do with a critical and reflective moral justification of these practices.

I shall pay attention to the following issues. Firstly, I find it disturbing that even within the Western medical community, there is evidently still a wide consensus on such an intrusive and violent procedure as male circumcision,albeit that this consensus is evidently based on very different ``moral'' justifications, which vary from public health, to scientific proof, to religion and to a diversity of Western values. More worrying is the fact that there appears to be a general agreement that this violent procedure (as therapeutic and non-therapeutic one) can (and according to Viens,even should) be carried out on infants and/or very small children. In addition, male genital mutilation (MGM) should not be considered in isolation from the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM). In this symposium only Viens recognises the existence of ``female genital cutting''. He, however, regards it as part of the same tradition which encourages MGM—that is, a tradition based on religious freedom/cultural identity—without making any attempt to distinguish the different nature of the medical and moral reasons put forward in favour of FGM.

Secondly, I find that both the medical and the value based arguments presented by these three authors lack either plausible evidence or logical consistency. Instead of discussing each article separately, however, I shall describe a wider global framework that provides false reasons in defence of genital mutilation, rather than providing any truly plausible moral justification for this practice.

Throughout history human beings have mutilated and harmed their bodies (and minds)in the name of culture, tradition, religion, and concepts of beauty, health, normality, or social status. One of the most persistent forms of these physical violations is mutilation of human genitalia. This practice has been related to:taboos about human sexuality; children's initiation to adulthood, maturity, and reproductive age;aesthetic values; the demands set by various religions, and to hygienic,individual,and public health medical beliefs. (See the articles by Hutson, Short and Viens in this journal, and also those by Aldeeb Abu-Salieh,Bigelow, and by an anonymous author in Echo ).1–7 All in all, mutilation of human sexual organs reflects our fears about human biological needs—and even deeper fears about human sexual needs—as well as fears to do with the maintenance of established social hierarchies in a society.

In this symposium we are discussing the most common form of genital mutilation, male circumcision. In its mildest form, this means the cutting of the foreskin of the penis. (For more detailed explanations see the articles by Hutson, Short, and Viens).1 2 3 It is important to note, however, that the same term, ``circumcision'' is also used in relation to women's genital mutilation, where it refers to the cutting of the tip or the whole of the clitoris. There are, however, various other, more radical and more harmful mutilations of human genitalia, which can be relatively minor or extremely serious. Female genital mutilation—for example, includes a wide range of ritual and non-medical operations undertaken on women's genital organs, which include their total or partial removal and amputation or incisions in the interior of the vagina. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) female genital mutilation can be classified into three major types: type I or clitoridectomy—removal of the tip of the clitoris; type II—cutting of the clitoris and all or part of the labia minora, and type III or infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, in which the clitoris is cut together with part or the whole of the labia minora and incisions are made on the labia majora. When this latter operation is performed, the edges of the wound are often tied up again leaving a small opening through which body liquids such as urine or menstrual blood can flow. The resulting mass of scar tissue which covers the urethra and the upper part of the vagina, completely closes the vulva. If the opening is wide enough, sexual intercourse may occur after a gradual dilatation, which can take days, weeks or even months. When the opening is too small to allow sexual intercourse, it must be widened with a razor or knife on the wedding night. Given the severity of cuts and stitches occurring during initial and repeated interventions, infibulation is the most harmful form of genital mutilation, both to reproductive health and to health in general. Other practices which prevail in certain countries of Central, Southern, and South Africa, consist in pulling the labia and introducing substances and minerals into the vagina to dry it and to increase men's sexual pleasure (Anonymous,6 p 5). Male genital mutilation can vary from body piercing through a range of various other modifications to amputation,and castration.

While the moral justification for any type of genital mutilation has been challenged from time to time, its continuation for both men and women has been rationalised over and over again via various medical,legal,moral,and cultural arguments. The campaigns against MGM have not been as vigorous as those against FGM since FGM is in general considered to be a more violent and socially suppressive practice than MGM. In addition FGM has more serious and damaging physical, as well as psychological or social, implications. On the other hand, the operation itself has no medical justification, whereas a medical justification is still put forward for MGM, as the articles by Hutson, Short, and Viens show. Thus, male circumcision has been easier to accept as a minor harm that can be justified, or at least tolerated, if not sometimes encouraged (see Short's paper in this journal) as a part of a particular religious or cultural tradition or as a measure promoting individual or public health.

In general, the arguments against MGM or FGM claim that both practices violate the physical integrity of children and cause avoidable pain. In the worst cases they can lead to irreversible physical or psychological harm, as noted by Huston in his contribution to this symposium. It appears, however, that while neither, Hutson, Viens, nor Short recommend male circumcision as a public health measure, in individual cases they all accept male circumcision either on medical or on religious grounds, as long as it does not cause pain. Thus, they recommend better pain management measures and more refined procedures to perform the operation. This is particularly true of Viens's argument, which defends, the practice in the name of religious freedom but denies the fact that the operation is—or should be—painful. This position appears to be contradictory, since as a religious or cultural practice, the endurance of pain is often an essential part of the ritual, showing the readiness of individuals to transit from childhood to adulthood, from boy to man, in the case of MGM, and from girl to woman in the case of FGM. The other problem with Viens's argument for religious freedom in relation to male circumcision is that it supports male circumcision being carried out on infants and small children at the request of their parents, rather than waiting for the children to be ``old'' enough to give their ``informed consent'' and to understand the real significance of the ritual and ``the need to tolerate pain''.

From a human rights perspective both male and female genital mutilation, particularly when performed on infants or defenceless small children,and for non-therapeutic reasons can be clearly condemned as a violation of children's rights whether or not they cause direct pain. Parents' rights cannot override children's rights. If we allow parents to decide what is best for their children on the basis of the children's religious or cultural identity, we would have no justification for stopping them cutting off their children's ears, fingers, or noses if their religious and cultural beliefs demanded this. Also, if we allow parents' rights to override children's rights, we could not then forbid them from making any other physical and spiritual sacrifices, (such as ``cannibalism'' or ``human sacrifice'' as extreme examples), particularly if we follow Viens's recommendation and manage to develop techniques that minimise or abolish pain.

This article focuses on male circumcision, but I do not want to disregard the importance of mentioning female genital mutilation in the same context. Some advocates of women's rights who emphasise FGM as a sign of gender based violence which springs from the patriarchal oppression of women, tend to be reluctant to allow any comparison between male and female genital mutilation and may disagree with my comparisons.8 In this article, however, parallels between FGM and MGM are drawn only in respect of the implications of performing any potentially harmful non-therapeutic, non-consensual procedure that in the end is, in one way or another, a social issue rather than a medical one. My purpose is not to diminish the ethical, social, and medical dangers involved in FGM, but to widen the scope of the discussion in this symposium. Focusing merely on male circumcision—and leaving it almost exclusively within a medical context—may make us forget that what we are discussing here is a historical tendency to look for rationalisations that allow us to practise genital mutilation in one form or another, across geographical, cultural, and religious boundaries.

I believe that examining the traditions of genital mutilation from the point of view of both sexes may reveal more clearly the irrationality involved in the justifications that are made for continuing the practice of mutilating human genitals. Thus, while there is a need to pay special attention to the elements of social and political oppression involved in FGM, it is also important to note that throughout time men, as well as women, have learned to accept that there are good reasons for the mutilations of human genitalia. Usually these reasons raise false hopes that undergoing the operation somehow improves people's lives—and the lives of their children—whether this be in the context of social status or of a medical condition, while the true reasons for the practice may lie elsewhere.

When the justification of genital mutilation is discussed,the disputes are usually tangled around issues about the universality and relativity of our value systems, and can often centre on the conflict between the different rights that might be involved. In most cases, the debates for and against genital mutilation are set within the framework of collective cultural rights v individual rights. The arguments against the practice of genital mutilation tend to appeal to the promotion of individual autonomy and universal human rights to various freedoms, while those who defend the practice draw support for their claims from demands to respect a person's particular cultural identity and/to protect the rights of minorities,(minority cultures) as for instance is argued by Veins.3 (See also Mills 9 10 and in connection with genital mutilation my own paper of 1999.11)

In fact, Veins' argument further complicates this debate between individualism and collectivism by supporting male circumcision not only via an appeal to (religious) freedom and identity as such, but also by defending parents' rights to decide what is the best for their children. He supports MGM further by going on to defend our autonomy to decide what is our concept of the good life and wellbeing, while simultaneously refuting children's rights as not being real ``rights'' of autonomous and fully rational persons. This sets ``autonomous'', ``adult'' rights against children's rights. While children's rights tend to create a problem for the defence of autonomy and informed consent in general, Veins' view presents a rather contradictory rationalisation for male genital mutilation by championing parents' ``cultural identity'' against their children's physical integrity. There is always a danger in combining cultural and religious identity. The issue of religion and religious identity in the context of culture is in itself very complex: different cultures have different influences on the interpretations of religious norms, practices, and identities. Whether we talk about Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or any other world religion, each is followed very differently, depending on the original culture and the historical changes that have affected it: Islam and Christianity—for example, are practised very differently in Saudi Arabia, in Uganda, and in the UK.

On the other hand, Veins' argument provides a good example of how the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism presents a rather black and white picture of the cultural history of our world: individualism is tied inseparably to universalism and the universal promotion of human rights, while collectivist lifestyles are related directly to relativism, which allows social suppression. This polarisation of the positions simply overlooks the fact that individualistic values and lifestyles can also fall into relativist reasoning that rejects any interference with individuals' ``autonomous'' choices. This position clearly disregards the fact that most of our choices are made in a social context and may often be influenced by social pressures, or even by some refined forms of social coercion.

Also, an individualist culture, in the name of tolerance and freedom, may justify extremely violent and irrational practices, and ``autonomous'' parents can ask for their children to be physically mutilated in the name of their preferred collective identity. Collectivist value systems and cultural traditions, for their part, rely on a universal demand for the protection of religious and/or cultural rights and identities.12 13

Reconsidering descriptive and prescriptive senses of value systems can help us overcome normative cultural dichotomies and to avoid culturally biased discussions about genital mutilation and other harmful practices. In order to curb injurious practices we need to acknowledge that what makes some of these harmful customs so persistent is the tendency to see them as essential, integral, and identifying parts of particular cultures or belief systems. If, however, we recognised openly that the same or similar practices tend to appear universally—that is, the same or similar practices exist in one form or another in most parts of the world but with different rationalisations—we could see more easily the smokescreen that tends to blur moral argumentation around these practices. The best way to curtail any harmful and violent custom is to find a way to raise resistance to it within the communities themselves,by revealing the irrationality and dishonesty of the reasons put forward to maintain such customs as genital mutilation, and so their irrelevance to any cultural identity.

Arguing about conflicting rights and cultural identities may lead us astray, if we do not invalidate some of the central fallacies that persist as part of the rationalisation process of genital mutilation. Firstly, if we are to have a serious ``moral debate'' on the persistent existence of genital mutilation, we need to recognise the various rationalisations used to defend it throughout human history,not merely in any particular time or age. Secondly, we need to further evaluate these rationalisations to see how they are successfully shaped to fit their local traditions and social environments.In most cases, these rationalisations are full of inconsistencies and act as a mere smokescreen to cover up the actual social, political, or economic reasons that are behind the preservation of genital mutilation in any given cultural context. Thirdly, recognising the complexity of the cultural and ethical issues involved in the justification process of genital mutilation may help us to find new ways to get rid off the false reasons for the practice and better ways to combat this violent practice worldwide.

Since the practice of genital mutilation has existed in almost all known civilisations at some time or another in various forms, we cannot say genital mutilation is a tradition that is unique to a particular culture or religion as such; and therefore we cannot say that defending the practice means defending the right of that culture to exist and defending the rights of its members to maintain their cultural identities. Since genital mutilation has appeared in a number of cultures and is related to various belief systems, it is not important whether these cultures or belief systems themselves are (more) individualist or (more) collectivist in their value structure: what is important is to pay more attention to the differences in the types of rationalisation put forward to support them within different types of cultural frameworks. In most cases it appears that whether the practice withers away or remains an integral part of that culture's identity, depends on the strength of the rationalisations and the availability of education in that culture.

Since genital mutilation is not alien to individualist cultures, we can look at the medical rationalisation of male circumcision in the Western individualist tradition. Within Western medical history cutting off or extracting the male foreskin has been believed to cure insanity, masturbation, epilepsy, cancer of the penis, and even cancer of the cervix of the future wives of the circumcised boys as well as sexually transmitted diseases and particularly phimosis (either as a disease or as a cause of other diseases such as cancer). Even today the relation between male circumcision and HIV/AIDS is still extensively studied and debated,as the articles by Hutson, Short, and Viens show.1 2 3 In particular, the claim that male circumcision is able in fact to prevent HIV/AIDS, can have negative consequences,especially in parts of the world where medical hygiene is poor and/or relevant health education is not readily available.

The claim that being circumcised helps to prevent HIV/ AIDS may in fact lead to triple jeopardy in the fight against AIDS. Firstly, where there is a lack of medical facilities for the operation the knives and other utensils used for the procedure might actually fuel the spread of AIDS. This further complicates Viens's argument for religious freedom, because he also recommends that the operation be carried out in modern medical facilities with more advance pain management. If this requirement is set in a global context, a logical, but nevertheless contradictory, consequence would be, that (male or female) circumcision should be allowed in the name of religion only in those parts of the world were hygiene and advanced medical treatments and technology are readily available. From the point of view of religious freedom this is a rather restrictive requirement.

Secondly, the fact that people believe they are somehow protected against HIV by being circumcised may cause them to be somewhat careless or dismissive about the need for other protection, to have promiscuous sex, and in general to feel they are now immune to the virus. Thirdly, the fact that male circumcision is seen to be medically related to the prevention of HIV/AIDS may lead onto a slippery slope that ultimately leads to it being culturally required that FGM is practised for the same purpose. This would be even more counterproductive, since there is medical evidence that women are more vulnerable to the virus to start with. Whatever medical indication there might be that male circumcision actually prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS, the effect of this in stopping the spread of the virus would be undermined if, as a result, more women were infected because of unsafe, and maybe also forced, sex.

All this shows that while opinions about the diseases that male circumcision is to be used to prevent or to cure have changed throughout time, male circumcision as such has persistently maintained its place as a medically justifiable practice in Western countries, and is gaining further justification as the papers by Hutson, Short, and Viens show. In addition, male circumcision has also had a longstanding religious rationalisation in the Western cultural context within Judaism, Islam, and even Christianity, as explicated by Viens; it has medical rationalisation to the level of being almost routinely practised in the United States and in Australia, as discussed by Hutson and Short; and in most cases it has an individual justification which is based on alleged medical conditions, as noted by Short. The medicalisation of this operation in the West has given the practice a stronger ``rational'' justification in a modern society than even traditional and religious demands can provide.

Whether the rationalisations of genital mutilation are cultural, aesthetic, religious, hygienic, medical, or scientific, the truth behind the practice of genital mutilation might still be a very different story. Even a medical rationalisation may cover up other more hidden purposes. If we compare the persistent continuation of male circumcision in the United States with the same phenomenon in Europe we find rather interesting results. The studies by Fletcher,14 and Fleiss18 show how in the United States, where the routine circumcision of newborn males has been common until rather recently, because of the widespread diffusion of the scientific myths about its benefits, the medical data with counter results were deliberately ignored or misinterpreted in order to maintain the practice. For instance, the latest reports from European medical research on the issue were neglected in order to maintain the practice in the USA even when it was already rapidly disappearing in Europe, as also noted by Hutson.1 Behind the disguise of alleged medical benefits we can find more gruesome reasons for the maintenance of the practice. In a modern, American, market oriented society male circumcision became a form of commercial exploitation of children when physicians, in cooperation with transnational biotechnology corporations, looked for the sales of marketable and economically profitable products made from harvested human foreskins that could further be used in the pharmaceutical industry (Fletcher,14 pp 259–71), (Sorrells,15 pp 331–7).17

The practice of genital mutilation plays a central role in social hierarchies and personal relationships (not only between the different genders, but also between men themselves and between women themselves). Whether the rationalisation for male circumcision is a religious, cultural, medical or hygienic one, those men who remain uncircumcised in the societies in which the practice is common, are made to feel somehow abnormal and/or not equal to those who have undergone the operation. Just to take a few local examples: in East Africa, for instance, men of the Masai tribe see uncircumcised men as adolescent, spineless, and timid cowards who do not have full male qualifications (whether we talk about the uncircumcised men of their own community, or those of other tribes or races). Within the Cameroonian Nso tribe the three main rationalisations for male circumcision have been firstly, the belief that circumcision prepares the penis, puts it in a state of readiness for coitus and procreation, secondly that it tests the courage and endurance of a boy at the threshold of adulthood, and thirdly, but rather in contradiction of the first claim, it is thought to tame and moderate the sexual instinct thereby helping a man to act more responsibly.

The Tanzanian Chagga tribe, for its part, circumcises young boys in different age groups (thus the age for circumcision may vary from 4 to 18). In cases where the circumcision is postponed for a long time, for one reason or another, by the parents and relatives, many of the boys seek a way to go through the operation on their own, endurance of pain being a central element of the ritual. Before having the operation done to them they feel socially and physically immature. With the modern Chagga, many of whom are now Catholics by religion, the rationalisation for circumcision is nowadays hygienic rather than traditional. The Islamic Chagga, for their part, can appeal to the demands of their religion, for circumcision. In reality, however, the practice is clearly based on peer pressure and the community's social expectations. Uncircumcised men in many African communities are seen as undeveloped or ``child like'' and are thought to be inclined to poor sexual or reproductive performance.

Social pressures are also typical in the societies in which the rationalisation is more purely based on religious demands. It may seem inconsistent to require genital mutilation on a religious basis since this is perfecting the work of God by cutting off,modifying or redesigning any part of a human body which has been created by God. The human ability to find the needed false reasons, however, is boundless; in the case of genital mutilation the attempt to reduce sexual pleasure and to maintain chastity is seen not only as an improvement of God's work, but also as showing obedience to whatever is believed and interpreted to be God's will in any given culture. In traditional Judaism, for instance, male circumcision is a means to moderate the sexual pleasure of men and their attraction to women. Similar views, to do with reducing the sexual pleasure rather than fully suppressing it, have been presented in Islam. In Islam the argument linking pleasure to circumcision, however, is used more frequently in the case of female genital mutilation. In most religions (as for Jews and Muslims) circumcision is also a mark that distinguishes the believer from the non-believer. The fact that circumcision has, throughout history, been practised also within traditional belief systems—for example, by Australian Aborigines, the Mayas of Borneo, various Native American tribes, the ancient Aztecs and Mayas, etc—is not taken as undermining the claim that this practice is seen as a sign that distinguishes a believer from a non-believer in such world religions as Islam or Judaism.4 5 20–23 In general then when the justification of genital mutilation is based on traditional or religious grounds, whether in Arab, Eastern, Western or Southern cultures, the emphasis has been on God's will as well as the purity of body and mind.

All in all, the inconsistencies between sexual performance and religious identity in relation to genital mutilation do not seem to reduce the power of the false reasons put forward to support the practice. In some cultures circumcision is justified as a means to control men's and women's sexual desires, while in others it is used for precisely the opposite purpose, that is to prove the sexual virility and endurance of men. In yet other cultures it is used to enforce traditional and natural cultural identity and social order, and in others it is used to mark religious affiliation and God's will.

Female genital mutilation, for its part, is usually seen as part of traditional and collectivist cultures with patriarchal social structures. It is not, however, fully alien to the more individualist Western cultural tradition. Female genital mutilation used to be practised in Western civilisations as a cure for various medical conditions while the actual social reasons for its maintenance may have lain elsewhere in Western history. Clitoridectomy was, for instance, used both in Europe and in America for hygienic reasons, as a medical cure for masturbation, and for mental disorders such as hysteria. Since in the West both male and female circumcision were practised by qualified doctors for allegedly legitimate medical indications, they were not considered to be the same brutal and intervening mutilations of the human body as they were seen to be elsewhere in so called ``more primitive'' societies. This shows that science can be a double edged sword that readily lends itself as an alibi for strongly held preferences and cultural biases. In particular, the medicalised nature of the Western culture itself can give legitimisation to even violent and unnecessary physical interventions on the human body in the name of science, progress, normality, and health while the actual reasons for such interventions may remain hidden.

Today, female genital mutilation, now called traditional circumcision, no longer exists openly in the Western cultural mainstream, but it persists in the developing world. With the relatively recent emphasis on pluralist values, tolerance, and respect for personal autonomy, however, practices of genital mutilations have recurred in the West. Body piercing and other rather extremist forms of sexual (pleasure seeking) subcultural practices have introduced new, less openly condemned, forms of genital mutilation. These contemporary forms of genital mutilation are taken to be more acceptable since they are thought to have come about as a result of one's autonomous choice and free will. Thus, the main ethical battle against genital mutilation in Western culture still focuses more on preventing the traditional forms of FGM, which also is practised (though mostly in secret) within various immigrant communities in multicultural Western societies. Here again, we can note that the culture itself introduces the same practice (in different forms) over and over again,succeeding always in finding a culturally fitting justification for it, while being simultaneously more than ready to reject the same or similar custom in other cultures.

While, however, many traditional communities where FGM is practised remain clearly more patriarchal and use female genital mutilation to control women's sexual behaviour, economic factors should not be ignored. Those performing the operation earn a good income out of it and thus, the practice provides livelihoods for many. Also, circumcised girls guarantee better bride prices and higher social status for their families. This may help us to understand why not only men, but also women themselves, while victims of the practice of FGM, are often its strongest proponents. It is true that the more traditional types of female genital mutilation clearly have more devastating medical consequences for their victims, particularly in poor environments and in unhygienic conditions. In addition, they are usually performed on vulnerable and defenceless children. Thus, evidently there is an urgent need to find a ways to curtail the practice. Additionally, as noted, female genital mutilation tends to persist in societies that have a more traditional, a more patriarchal social structure, thus its maintenance is more directly related to the low social status of women. Female genital mutilation in traditional environments is said to be harder to combat, since its persistent maintenance is usually based on women's lack of education and decision making power in their communities. Thus, the abolition of FGM is not merely in hands of its direct victims. It is also in the hands of the society as a whole, and particularly in the hands of those in social and political or religious power. Power relations between the sexes, however, are difficult to change and thus, the practice persists and is justified in a manner that makes women themselves adopt it as a part of their cultural identity and of their social pride through history. In Africa, for instance, the history of female genital mutilation dates back to 4000 years BC. Even today in Africa FGM is still practised in at least 27 countries and every year two million girls at least are exposed to sexual mutilation. These mutilations constitute one aspect of a series of traditional practices harmful to women's health and welfare—that is,forced marriages and early pregnancies, force feeding, tattooing, scarification, and nutritional taboos. Also, although some people consider the practice of FGM to be recommended by Islam, Christianity, and traditional religions, there are non-believers who practise this as well. These practices are also found in Egypt as well as in the majority of Arab Muslim countries of the Middle and Near East as well as in Islamic societies in the Far East.6 8 25 Finally, it should not be overlooked that women are also involved in the maintenance of male genital mutilation.In the case of MGM, setting aside religious or traditional rationalisations or social pressures from the community, women (those who themselves have not undergone any genital mutilation, as in the US—for example) may prefer circumcised men as sexual partners, either because their performance in sexual intercourse lasts longer or because they consider a circumcised penis to be more hygienic and/or more aesthetic than an uncircumcised one.

Human sexuality and the attempts to control it, particularly to reduce or add sexual pleasure, have been, in one way or another, a part of all known cultures and civilisations. While sometimes this fact is acknowledged openly as the main purpose for genital mutilation, in most cases other rationalisations are put forward for the practice. These false reasons have varied from religious and cultural demands to a number of medical ``explanations'', depending on the wider cultural tradition within which the practice has appeared. These different rationalisations for the maintenance of the practices in various cultures show that no matter what the cultural differences are in beliefs and lifestyles, genital mutilation is a universal sign of human civilisation—or maybe the lack of it. All societies have found the arguments that best fit their local cultural traditions and environments in order to introduce or maintain genital mutilation in its various forms. In the Western, rather individualist tradition, these rationalisations are based on benefit to the individual and/or autonomy; in the Southern and Eastern cultures their support is drawn more directly from social values and ties, or from the need to protect one's unique cultural identity against Western cultural imperialism. Thus, in this regard one cultural tradition cannot be said to be better than another. Rather, with further education and knowledge the cultural smokescreen around the real reasons for the maintenance of the practice can be overcome in all societies no matter what their cultural background.

Hutson JM. Circumcision: a surgeon's perspective. J Med Ethics 2004;30:238–40.
Short R. Male circumcision: a scientific perspective. J Med Ethics 2004;30:241.
Viens A. Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty. J Med Ethics 2004;30:241–7.
Aldeeb Abu-Salieh SA. Muslims' genitalia in the hands of the clergy: religious arguments about male and female circumcision. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum, 1999: 131–71.
Bigelow JD. Evangelical Christianity and its relation to infant male circumcision. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:173–7.
Anon. Female genital mutilation. Echo. Bilingual Quarterly of the Association of African Women for Research and Development. 2001 Oct 6:2.
Anon. Female genital mutilation. WHO Chronicle 1986;40:31–6.
Toubia N. Female genital mutilation. In: Peters J, Wolper A, eds. Women 's rights, human rights. London: Routledge, 1995:2–7.
Mill JS. On liberty. New York: Prometheus Books, 1986.
Mill JS. Utilitarianism. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.
Hellsten SK. Pluralism in multicultural liberal democracy and the justification of female circumcision. J Appl Philos 1999;16:69–83.
Hellsten SK. Multicultural issues in maternal fetal medicine. In: Dickenson DL, ed. Ethical issues in maternal fetal medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002:39–60.
Kukathas C. Are there any cultural rights? Polit Theory 1992;20:105–39.
Fletcher CR. Circumcision in America in 1998: attitudes, beliefs, and charges of American physicians. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision:medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:159–271 at 259–71.
Sorrells ML. The history of circumcision in the United States: a physician's perspective. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:331–7.
Whitfield HN. Publication on circumcision in the medical literature: the role of an editor. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:403–7 at 403–6.
Denniston GC. Tyranny of the victims: an analysis of circumcision advocacy. In:Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:221–239.
Fleiss PM. An analysis of bias regarding circumcision in American medical literature. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:379–401.
Tangwa GB. Circumcision: an African point of view. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:183–93 at 186.
Baker JP. Unifying language:religious and cultural considerations. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision:medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum,1999:195–9.
Goodman J. Jewish perspective on circumcision. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum,1999: 179–81.
Trachtenberg M. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:209–13.
Toubia N. Evolutionary cultural ethics and circumcision of children. In: Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice, In: Denniston GC, Mansfield Hodges F, Fayre Milos M, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999:1–7.
Benhabib S. Cultural complexity, moral interdependence, and the global dialogical community. In: Nussbaum M, ed. Women, culture and development. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995:235–55.
UNICEF research report: The girl child in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: UNICEF 1995.

Comment posted by La Bona
at 8/2/2005 8:16:00 PM
I have something similar Cover Your Genital.