Gambia's FGM Debate Reaches Court, Western Media Finds Its Outrage
The story focuses on the human tragedy—two babies died, a crucial detail for outrage. What’s often missed in these spotlight stories is the geopolitical selective vision. While the Guardian correctly frames this as an 'anti-women's rights backlash,' one can't help but note the selective application of such outrage. For instance, where's the equivalent Guardian deep-dive into the funding of US
politicians who vote to bomb hospitals, knowing full well the 'collateral damage'—women and children included—is inevitable? (OpenSecrets.org shows Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, for example, received $168,900 from AIPAC in 2022 and consistently supports aid packages to entities that have been accused of collective punishment). It appears that some human rights violations are more 'reportable' than others,
especially when they involve distant, non-allied nations. The horror of FGM is undeniable, yet the curated media focus often aligns perfectly with a narrative that keeps certain Western powers perpetually on the moral high ground, even as their own legislative bodies greenlight atrocities elsewhere. How many 'anti-women's rights backlashes' does it take before we question the selective outrage?