At the global level intactivists have had a hard time identifying an appropriate venue for activism or targeting their frame to that venue, and from what I can tell they may have missed some important opportunities in the last few years, though this requires more research.
The appropriate venue would vary considerably depending on the frame chosen. For example, during the period when intactivists were attempting to promote their cause through a health frame, getting support from the World Health Organization would have been optimal. In recent years however WHO has actually come to pose more of an obstacle than a political opportunity for intactivists, as they have promoted the idea of a link between HIV-AIDS reduction and circumcision.
With the human rights frame, NGOs would ideally need to target mainstream human rights organizations and the UN Commission on Human Rights. They have made some efforts to do so unsuccessfully (more on that next week). However other more focused venues have a arisen for which I'm not sure they focused any advocacy. For example, in 2001-2006, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative undertook a series of expert conferences culminating in a report on violence against children. NGOs had significant influence over the types of concerns raised in this report, but intactivists don't seem to have exerted much influence. The final report includes a section on female genital mutilation but not on boys. I need to conduct more research to discover to what extent the anti-circumcision movement aimed to get language into this report. Had they managed to do so it would have been an important agenda-setting opportunity.
At the domestic level the movement has been more targeted as specific venues, seeking to influence American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, and pushing legislation at the state level, including in Massachusetts this year:
No comments:
Post a Comment