...snip...
If you believe it is immoral to cut a girl's clitoris off, then wittering on about "Her dad has his own protection force and they are OK with it" is bullshit. Either you enforce the moral standard or you support the damage done to the victim.
I sympathize with your conviction in moral ideals. But you see there is a problem with this approach, don't you?
Who gets to decide which moral standard to enforce? It's quite easy for most people to agree on an issue like genital mutilation (but still it exists...), yet other issues are less clear. And don't forget: people are NOT trustworthy. How can we trust them to set and enforce the right moral standards, then? Seems to me, they'd be enforcing crooked standards - which seems to be going on today. I'd just argue that it's mostly because the system (environment) has corrupted the individuals occupying its seats of power, not because the people in the system are inherently crooked.
I realize I probably won't convince you of anything, there's no need to. I'm just typing out my thoughts. Maybe someone will enjoy them.
I am perfectly OK with the idea of an elected parliament deciding which moral standard to enforce. Its complicated choosing who to elect to make laws but the idea that you have to allow female genital mutilation because choosing law makers is complicated is absurd.
In case you are wondering, I do enjoy your thoughts. I very much doubt you believe its OK to allow female genital mutilation, bride burning or honour killings even in mainly Muslim areas where the private "protection force" would never intrude on a Muslim home.