Well great. No need to worry about all the poor sad tragic parents in Germany frustrated in their desire to snip off the end of their infant boy’s penis. They can haz circumcision. Yay!
The Cologne court ruling in June outraged Germany’s Muslims and Jews, and triggered an anguished national debate, by stating that ritual circumcision of under-aged boys amounted to “bodily harm” and parents should wait for their son to make his own decision.
Omigod I know, right? Wait for their son to make his own decision! How crazy is that?! If they wait, he’ll decide no! And that won’t do, because. So obviously they absolutely have to do it when he’s too small and altricial to refuse. That’s absolutely the only fair thing! If you know it’s something a person with a mature-ish brain would refuse to do, you totally have to do it to them when they are infants. This is God’s wish. God could have just issued the infants without the foreskin, but that would be too easy.
Jewish and Muslim groups branded the court order an attack on their religious freedom and an embarrassed German government — particularly sensitive to charges of intolerance because of the Nazi past — vowed to bring in legislation swiftly to protect ritual circumcisions.
Germany is home to about 4 million Muslims, mostly of Turkish origin, and 120,000 Jews. Chancellor Angela Merkel said if it failed to take action it risked becoming a laughing stock.
And there was just absolutely no need to think about the competing rights of the infants to keep their bodies intact until they were old enough to make their own decisions. Hell no! Fall all over yourselves to appease religious “groups” as if nothing else mattered.
The Justice Ministry has now issued the outlines of the new legislation that will protect a family’s right to circumcise their child, provided they have been fully informed about the procedure and use the “most effective pain relief possible.”
Completion and approval of the new law, which gives any family the right to have their child circumcised, regardless of religion, may be just weeks away. Some lawmakers are pressing for a vote of conscience freed from party discipline.
The right, the right, the right – as if the only right that mattered were the right of parents to have something done to their child. As if the right of the child – the infant – not to have a bit snipped off for no real reason had never even been thought of.
Muslim and Jewish groups have cautiously welcomed the outline proposal, but the months of uncertainty and debate that followed the Cologne ruling — which triggered rare joint demonstrations — have shaken the communities.
“This whole row has been very damaging to the integration process,” said Cologne doctor Omar Kezze.
Kezze, originally from Aleppo in Syria, is the doctor whose trial sparked the Cologne court ruling. A boy he circumcised was taken to hospital after his wounds continued to bleed and the hospital informed the police and local prosecutors. The court cleared Kezze of all charges but created a legal minefield when it classified circumcision as “bodily harm”.
“We have a financial crisis, we have extremists on the left and the right, many, many attacks,” Kezze said, speaking in his busy surgery where pictures of his native city adorn the wall.
“There are many things for our prosecutors to fight; they really shouldn’t be questioning a tradition dating back to Abraham.”
Bollocks. Evil bollocks. A tradition dating back to Abraham is just the kind of thing that everyone should be questioning.
Not all in Germany want to allow religious circumcisions. An opinion poll by TNS Emnid shortly after the Cologne ruling found 56% opposed to the practice.
Some doctors and children’s rights associations submitted a petition in September calling for a two-year moratorium and a round-table of medical, religious and legal experts to study circumcision fully.
“In the clear opinion of experts, the amputation of the foreskin is a grave interference in the bodily integrity of a child,” Georg Ehrmann, chairman of the child protection group Deutsche Kinderhilfe, told a news conference.
Oh well who cares what they think. It’s only what “the communities” think that counts.
This is absurd. The right to religious expression does not extend to wounding, harming or maiming other humans. Only the most callous interpretation of that right could lead a government to rejecting the safety and well being of children. The government’s attempt to assuage fears by insisting religious communities do this as painlessly as possible does nothing to mitigate the fact pieces of another human being’s body will be cut off without their consent.
And just what parent wants to unnecessarily put their child under anesthetics so early in life? That’s just throwing more absurdity into the pile.
How dare the classify bodily harm as “bodily harm”! Evil anti-Semitic Islamophobic swines!
Won’t somebody think of God’s feelings? All alone in his retirement home, shamed by Catholic and orthodox Jewish child-rape scandals, embarrassed by Muslim riots, and now being made to feel bad about that covenant he made with Abraham.
What next? Banning the insemination of one’s handmaiden? Not stoning harlots?
“There are many things for our prosecutors to fight; they really shouldn’t be questioning a tradition dating back to Abraham.”
That’s great. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I get an urge to bludgeon some hussies to death with rocks. Fuck fuck fuck tradition. Fuck it in it’s stupid fucking face.
On the other side: tail docking and ear cropping is forbidden. With an exception if that dog gets used for hunting.
And if you think a german dog puppy would have a higher chance for physical integrity: neutering is still allowed.
@julian #1:
They *don’t* use anesthetic for hospital circumcisions. For Jewish ritual circumcision, they do give the baby a bit of wine (just what every 8-day-old boy needs).
I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that bodily autonomy is important, but I’m still not sure I agree with your conclusions. The problem with a ban on circumcision is that, if you want one, it has to be enforced somehow – and what are you going to do to people who break the law?
Would you impose a hefty fine on parents who have their children circumcised? How will that impact a Jewish or Muslim family on low wages, or on welfare, struggling to support their children? Won’t this, in itself, harm the child? Or, to propose a more extreme course, would you have social services take children away from their parents by force to stop the children being circumcised? I think it’s safe to say that that would be considerably more traumatic and harmful to the child’s interests than being circumcised is. In any of these cases, you’re hurting the child who you’re purporting to protect, because a punishment designed to hurt the parents also hurts the child. And you’re causing far more harm to the child’s interests than the circumcision does in the first place.
Or would you make it a disciplinary offence for doctors to perform circumcisions? Great – families who want their children circumcised will just go to an unqualified person, who’s less likely to perform the procedure safely, rather than a doctor. And it won’t make any difference to Jewish ritual circumcisions, which aren’t performed by doctors in the first place.
I don’t support circumcision, and I wouldn’t have any child of mine circumcised. But I’m still not comfortable with making it illegal, because no one’s ever explained to me how they would enforce such a ban in a way that wouldn’t cause more harm than circumcision does in the first place. Of course you could always have a ban but not enforce it – but I don’t think that would be effective, given that many people who have their children circumcised believe that they’re religiously obliged to do so, and would thus be likely to ignore the law.
(That said, I completely agree with you that “it’s traditional” is a crappy argument for anything. And I agree with you that it’s a mistake to talk about parents’ “right to have their child circumcised” – the interests of the child, not the parents, should be paramount. But it’s precisely because I’m concerned about the child’s interests that I’m sceptical about the effects of a ban.)
Walton, lots of laws are not “enforced”. They are there to promote something with the suggestion that this idea is so good, it has been enshrined by our government. It makes a suggestion, the effects of which may be seen years later, but alsp possibly in the present. People who would automatically have a child circumcised without thinking may examine their actions for the first time and decide not to have the snipping performed.
Now, I’m all for examining potential unintended consequences, and you, as always, raise very good points and the things you consider here are so bloody obvious that the German state and society should examine them vigorously.
But do bear in mind that some laws are not meant to be enforced, as such, excepting maybe in egregious cases where they may simply be brought forth as an additional tool.
Whatever, if Germany does drop this law, I hope there is issued something of the nature of the legally non-binding “resolutions” made by the US legislature on the matter.
Religion is so accostumed to be above the law, when a judge says religious people have to obey the law like everybody else, it’s considered an attack.
I really hope that the constitutionality of this law gets challenged in the German constitutional court ASAP.
German humanist and secular organisations, here’s your chance to shine! 🙂
Walton,
So what do you suggest to be done about it in Europe?
Walton: So how do you propose to stop Muslims from cutting girls in Europe, if not by using the law?
Ophelia:
* With a Gomco, Winkelman or Mogen Clamp it’s sliced – and a Mogen may take more than just the foreskin, which has led to successful claims worth millions and the Mogen company going out of business.
* With a Plastibell or PrePex it’s crushed and allowed to die.
* With an Accu-circ it’s chopped.
– but never “snipped”. Watch any of the many videos online of a circumcision being done and you won’t use the word “snip” again.
I never had any illusions about my native country being very enlightened, but the 56% you mentioned made me feel a bit better at the end.
“A tradition dating back to Abraham is just the kind of thing that everyone should be questioning.” Well said… too bad “everyone” don’t give a flyin’ f^ck… http://tinyurl.com/bmh2p2m
We could use your help in shaming the AAP for their brutal new circumcision policy. please RT see http://tinyurl.com/8v2r88h
“I circumcised a monkey, gave it a knife, and it went around the cage skinning every penis in sight.”
Most people here have probably seen this, but for those who haven’t, here’s NonStampCollector’s take on Abraham and Isaac:
Walton’s cure-is-worse-than-the-disease mindset is already in full effect, such that the United Kingdom has never prosecuted a single person for female genital mutilation. Bravo, you must be very proud. Multiple girls, our fellow citizens, may have literally had their genitals hacked off this past day, but no one called you racist or imperialist. You sleep a righteous sleep as I type.
Of course the UK has become paranoid about appearing racist to detriment of liberal values and common sense. Sadly I think less-PC nations like France, Spain and the States probably tally a handful of prosecution for FGM among them.
The only way to stop these abuses stop is through blanket criminalisation (achieved) coupled with mandatory monitoring of children from relevant ethnic groups by medical professionals. Violations would then have to be reported automatically by law, prosecuted without fail and punished with intent to send a message.
This issue of child genital cutting is a profound moral test for Western liberals and society in general. Can we stomach being a bit racist, imperialist and restrictive of religion in order to protect children. As Nick Cohen sadly noted in yesterday’s Observer, based on the history of sex abuses the answer is a damning “no”.
Wait, what? Don’t compare FGM to male circumcision. FGM is seriously harmful, causes extreme pain and often leads to lifelong health problems. It’s tantamount to torture. I fully support banning FGM, and I’ve consistently said so every time the topic has come up. It should be illegal, and the law should be actively enforced (though I strongly oppose Rebekah’s suggestion of ethnic profiling, which is racist).
In male circumcision, by contrast, the amount of harm caused is relatively trivial. There’s no comparison between the two things. My concern, which I have clearly set out, is that any enforcement measures taken to stop people having their male infants circumcised would cause far more harm than male circumcision does in the first place. No one’s countered that point.
I don’t know; but as far as I can tell, the proposed solution of banning male circumcision would be likely to do more harm than good. I don’t see male circumcision as such a serious problem that we need to resort to drastic measures to stop it. Better to keep it legal and carefully regulated for the protection of children’s safety.
Walton, your entire post is a blatant misdirection. I never claimed FGM and male circumcision involve equal harm. You whack away at that fabrication to conspicuously avoid the challenge I raised. Are the harms of effectively enforcing the ban on FGM greater than the damage done by FGM?
Again I ask because the political forces in the UK, with their knee-jerk political correctness have decided apparently that the cure is indeed worse than the disease and no effort whatsoever will be made to enforce the law? Please lay out the programme you feel would actually effectively end the practice among residents of the UK.
As I predicted though, obsessive fear of racism is bound to trump commons sense or commitment to human rights. The waltons of the world have us pretend a girl from a white British family is just as likely or even likely at all to be the victim of FGM and only vile ‘racists’ like me would dare suggest we focus our efforts on Britons of Egyptian, Somali, Kurdish, etc. extraction. This is not terrorism or some phenomenon that really is universal; this is rooted with specific, easily identifiable cultures.
The irony is that walton protests, even though I am a person whose origins lie a region, North Africa, that might get caught in that effort. And yet I would have no problem complying even if other Britons were exempt.
No. That’s why FGM should be banned, and the ban should be enforced. I’ve consistently said so. You’re putting words in my mouth and attributing views to me which I don’t hold.
I was protesting against banning male circumcision. which is what the post is about. You’re the one who changed the subject to FGM, for no apparent reason. Why are you accusing me of not supporting the ban on FGM when I have repeatedly said that I do support it?
Oh so that’s who NonStampCollector is! So NonStampCollector is that guy. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
walton, again you respond with obtuse posturing and what appear to be knowingly dishonest recriminations.
“Why are you accusing me of not supporting the ban on FGM when I have repeatedly said that I do support it?”
I never said you did not support the ban on FGM and your conspicuous lack of a quote to that effect is noted. That is just an attempt by you to avoid the issue.
What I did was draw the logical connection between your stated objections to a (hypothetical) ban on male circumcision and the current lack of enforcement on the actual ban on FGM.
I am saying your exact mindset is already at work on a more serious human rights issue (i.e. FGM) and its effect is that we do nothing to stop said abuse.
I then asked in my second post for you to “[p]lease lay out the programme you feel would actually effectively end the practice among residents of the UK.”
Your failure to respond and instead focus on a claim I never made, just like you focused on a claim I never made in your first response speaks volumes.
walton, in case in bears explanation, I am here to charge that your political type fundamentally lacks the moral integrity to ever actually support any substantive move against FGM.
*Of course* you support the ban on FGM on a theoretical level, but no means of actual enforcement will not ultimately involve a white majority telling minority non-whites what is or is not right in the case of FGM within immigrant communities in the West.
Nothing I have ever seen you write suggests you could stomach that appearance of racism even if it had as desirable a goal as severely reducing FGM.
Being ‘not-racist’ appears to be your first principle of ethics and all other matters, gender equality, medical ethics, children’s rights, self-determination of groups (i.e. your opposition to immigration control), free expression, etc. are all secondary and readily sacrificed to the first.
Just in this thread you announced you were not comfortable with gender equality under the law or basic medical ethics, since a ban on male circumcision would simply provide the same protection of bodily integrity as girls theoretically enjoy and enforce the otherwise universal prohibition on surgery on children without consent or acute medical need.
The fact I even have to explain that is sad.
You can invent whatever crude stereotypes you like about my “political type”, but that doesn’t make them true. I support an actively-enforced law against FGM – including prosecutions, and including, if need be, having social services take children into care. FGM is so serious and harmful that it should be prohibited, and the consequences of enforcing such a prohibition are worth bearing. I’ve said so repeatedly.
Firstly, I’d point out that I didn’t actually mention racism in my arguments against banning male circumcision. I did not say that banning male circumcision was racist. My argument was, instead, that enforcing the ban would cause more suffering than the practice itself does.
Secondly, my “first principle of ethics” (if there can be such a thing) is that we should treat fellow human beings with compassion, kindness and non-violence. Being not-racist is, of course, an integral part of that, as is being not-sexist and not-homophobic. I didn’t think this was controversial among intelligent people.
And if by “self-determination of groups” you mean the right of the majority to decree that immigrants (including victims of torture and rape) should be locked in cages, chained up and violently restrained in order to “secure our borders”, then yes, I do oppose that. As should anyone with a shred of humanity.
It’s got nothing to do with gender equality – FGM simply isn’t comparable to male circumcision. You can oppose male circumcision or not as you like (and I do oppose it – my concern is about the consequences of a ban; I’m not defending the practice), but my thinking that FGM should be outlawed, and that male circumcision should not, does not mean I’m discriminating against boys. Rather, it’s a case of comparing apples to oranges.
Racism, including the popular leftist pseudo-form of Islamophobia, has been constantly invoked in arguments over male circumcision. In fact that is the driving force behind Germany’s backtracking on what would have been a genuine and progressivee application of Germany’s basic human rights principles. Holocaust guilt and Islamophobia-phobia trump human rights.
You profess such innocence, but given your expressed worldview, you cannot possibly fail to see the fact that in Europe circumcision bans would all but exclusively target ethnic minorities. You explicitly said you could not support searching for FGM by ethnic profiling, even though it literally is a crime that is virtually unknown outside a few relevant ethnic groups. Well a circumcision ban would roll along the same track, although it would include Jews and additional Christian and Muslim groups.
“It’s got nothing to do with gender equality”
That again is the voice of moral cowardice and denial. You keep thrashing the strawman of equal harm, a claim no one has made (again made clear by your failure for a third time to quote me on that point).
If girls have a right to bodily integrity, then so do boys, full stop. If you care to argue why that is not true, then have the courage to do so instead of dancing about with your strawman.
You preen about how “non-sexist” you intend to be and yet you cannot maintain that façade within your own message. I note too how you conspicuously fail to address the medical ethics issue, which again holds a basic principle equally applicable regardless of a patient’s sex.
On that note you posture even further about how “non-violence” is a value hold, but do not seem to include medically unnecessary surgery done without patient consent. Dr Mengle would be proud.
And yet you found time to lash out in favour of your pet interest of destroying a basic principle of national sovereignty and self-determination. Locking up a person committing an almost universally-recognised offence (name a functioning state that allows anyone to enter without restriction) is a terrible injustice that you would prohibit, but just cannot find the courage to support ending a religious blood ritual performed on children. I stand by my charge that your obsessive anti-racism has left you morally bankrupt.
I’m sure I could find a better use for my time than being ranted at, for things I haven’t actually said, by someone who thinks that comparing me to Mengele is a reasonable debate tactic. I’m out.
As to your stance on immigration, I suggest you look the women of Yarl’s Wood in the eye, or Aziz Hussini and his distraught fiancée, or the grieving family of Jimmy Mubenga, and tell them that their suffering is justified in the name of “national sovereignty”. I’m sure people who have fled thousands of miles to escape torture, rape and violence in their home countries would be happy to know that you think they deserve to be locked away behind barbed wire and treated as “illegal”, merely because of where they were born. I’m bringing this up not because I think you care about their suffering – you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t give a damn – but because the world needs to confront the real human consequences of immigration control.