Why Apologise?

Russel Crowe has apologised for comments he made regarding the circumcision of infants.

Hollywood star Russell Crowe has apologised for criticising the ritual of circumcision on his Twitter account.

Crowe said the procedure was “barbaric and stupid” but later deleted his comments.

He later wrote: “I’m very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress.”

“My personal beliefs aside, I realise that some will interpret this… as me mocking rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry,” he added.

Sigh…

The whole point about discussion –  particularly when it comes to rituals and beliefs is that someone, somewhere will be offended. Frankly, that’s just too bad. Crowe is right, circumcision of infants who are unable to give consent is barbaric and stupid. And mocking is probably not the right thing to do –  round, vigorous and repeated condemnation is more appropriate.

I presume that what prompted the discussion was this.

San Francisco voters will decide later this year whether, like its female counterpart, male infant circumcision should be outlawed. If passed, article 50 — the “Genital Cutting of Male Minors” — would make it unlawful to circumcise, cut, or mutilate the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person aged under 18. The bill includes an exemption for cases of medical necessity, but not for custom or ritual, which has profound implications for the many Jews and Muslims who consider it an essential part of their religious or cultural practice.

Now there’s a situation to get libertarian knickers in a twist. Is a ban on infant circumcision a case of the state interfering where it has no right or is it a case of upholding the non aggression principle? I am inclined to the latter, even though I dislike bans and the state making new laws. Indeed, given that it is assault, a new law is unnecessary, prosecute the bastards who do this using existing ones. The parents’ right to religious practice should not extend to the mutilation of their infants –  as they are conducting what amounts to assault. No, let’s call a spade a spade, it is assault.

And, no, saying so is not anti Semitic. Frankly, the idea that it is okay to cut off a part of an infant’s body on the basis of some ancient tribal ritual is abhorrent, barbaric and deeply repugnant. Worship whatever you like, conduct whatever silly rituals you choose, but if you really think that your chosen deity made the male body so imperfect that it needs some impromptu modification carried out by a religious leader, then wait until the boy is of an age to make an informed decision. If he chooses of his own volition to have a part of his penis hacked off, then fine, go ahead.

Ah, but, that would kill the practice overnight, wouldn’t it? And Crowe? He has nothing to apologise for, he was perfectly correct and should have had the guts to stick by his principles.

19 Comments

  1. It wouldn’t stop the practice, as you know, and would only send it underground. This is basic stuff which we all know leads to all sorts of unintended consequences, not to mention precedents.

    You’re also straying very close to NSPCC doctrines whereby parental rights are restricted along ‘child abuse’ lines – OK, the NSPCC delve into quite ludicrous forms such as threatening to throw kids’ toys away for bad behaviour, but it’s inviting the state into where they don’t belong IMO and can’t help matters.

    I have no view one way or another on the circumcision debate per se, it’s far too complicated a subject to apply ideology one way or another IMO (there’s an pro-cut health argument to be made for example, let alone the religious freedom aspect). Which is why it’s not the state’s job to get involved.

    Why does everyone these days seem to be happy for governments to ‘do something’?

    It just seems to me to be more ‘cult of the now’ US liberal politics. Only IMHO of course.

    But you’re definitely right that Crowe shouldn’t have apologised.

  2. He’s an actor, and they aren’t supposed to have principles. And those who do, find they have to run everything by the studio’s PR department first.

  3. All circumcision is child abuse. That an East African culture believes in female circumcision and a Middle Eastern culture believes in male circumcision do not make either form of ritual mutilation any less of a crime against the individual.

    Like the barbarous ritual slaughter of animals this horror should be driven from our shores.

  4. Dick, you expand somewhat on the question I raised for libertarians – religious freedom versus the dead hand of the state. However, I’m firmly with Gallovidan here – circumcision is abuse – it is a violent assault against the individual. Parental rights to religious freedom cease where the infant’s right to keep his body intact starts. So, yeah, the state should keep out of peoples’ business when it comes to bring up their children. That does not give them carte blanche to allow some religious fruitcake to hack off the end of the child’s penis with a knife. The state, therefore should be doing what it does with any other form of assault against a minor; investigate, charge and prosecute. In that respect, I am not suggesting that the sate “do ” something beyond what it is supposed to be doing anyway; upholding the rule of law. That this ritual abuse is not a criminal offence is, frankly, an aberration. We don’t allow people to chop off other body parts, so why the genitals?

    A test of consistency of approach on this one is to ask would you be happy for someone to hold you down and forcibly cut off a part of your body without your prior consent? If the answer is “no” why allow it to happen to infants? The argument usually put forward is parental responsibility. Frankly, anyone who allows such barbaric abuse, has betrayed that parental responsibility.

    …there’s an pro-cut health argument to be made for example, let alone the religious freedom aspect

    Actually, there isn’t. The HIV transmission argument holds no water whatsoever. For every study that comes to this very iffy conclusion, there is another that debunks it. The only medical justification is where the foreskin won’t slide easily over the glans and even that can be overcome without surgery.

    it’s far too complicated a subject to apply ideology one way or another IMO

    Here, I have to disagree. It is remarkably simple. Do you think that violent assault against an infant who is supposed to be able to rely on his parents to keep him safe for such barbarism is an acceptable practice? Violence against minors is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. The justifications and excuses used to perpetuate this repugnant practice are so much hot air. And, yes, I am aware that there is the issue of unintended consequences, but that is merely emotional blackmail as it amounts to “let us carry on, or it will be worse”. Sorry, that just don’t cut it (pun intended).

  5. Male circumcision is also a treatment for the not uncommon condition of Phimosis. So should this specific medical procedure fall under the ban?

    Ritual female circumcision as practised is medieval. However, the case for banning male circumcision is less than (Ahem) cut and dried.

  6. Bill, I did mention this condition. Circumcision is not the only possible treatment.

    As for it not being cut and dried – ahem, indeed – actually it is. Any removal of a body part without the express consent of the individual unless strictly for medical purposes, is assault. Assault in any other context is treated as a criminal offence. It is absurd that religion gets a free ride when it really shouldn’t. Male circumcision is no less medieval and barbaric than the female variety – the differences between the two are ones of degree, not principle.

  7. LR, it’s one of those treatments like an appendectomy and pretty innocuous, unlike its female counterpart.

    All else I can offer is my experience of discussions with old friends who had been circumcised shortly after birth. All of them non-Semitic. Everyone I’ve ever met who has had the snip as children rarely (at least in my hearing) vouchsafed any dissatisfaction with said missing flap of skin. When challenged on the subject they’ve even suggested that their (Claimed many) ladyfriends expressed preference for a male organ thus trimmed. So I’m inclined to think the whole ‘child abuse’ thing is a bit of an invention.

    I’m with the ban to the point that mutilating the testicles or shaft is unnecessary and downright wicked, but outlawing male circumcision? No.

  8. XX but it’s inviting the state into where they don’t belong IMO and can’t help matters.

    Why does everyone these days seem to be happy for governments to ‘do something’?

    It just seems to me to be more ‘cult of the now’ US liberal politics. Only IMHO of course.

    Comment by Dick Puddlecote — June XX

    “Liberty” is all well and good. But there are circumstances when “Governments” MUST take control. Or are you exepcting a 12 day old to jump up from the Rabbis table and scream “WHAT ABOUT MY CIVIL RIGHTS YOU BASTARDS?” And it is no use anyone screaming “parents rights” either. Who do you think TOOK the bastard to the Rabbi/mülla?

  9. Interestingly (I think) over 50% of the American male population has been circumcised, whereas only 2% is Jewish (for instance), and far less than that observant of course.

    So, it’s not some wicked religious nutters abusing their children at the bottom of this. Presumably the motivation is medical then, in which case, one assumes the parents think they were/are acting in the best interests of their children?

    Isn’t that the job of parents? Or does the state (or in this case, the ‘elites’ pushing this agenda) always know better? Hmm.

  10. The case for circumcision is very much one of policy based evidence gathering, which is why the excuses proffered are so risible and easily rebutted.

    Firstly, let’s deal with the medical one. I acknowledged in the post that there may be a medical case for the procedure however, this will be on a case-by-case basis with the best interests of the patient at heart. In other words, it is based upon the individual needs of the patient. Mass circumcision is no more rational than mass prescribing all over 55s with statins “just in case”.

    Everyone I’ve ever met who has had the snip as children rarely (at least in my hearing) vouchsafed any dissatisfaction with said missing flap of skin.

    Of course not. They don’t know any different. The only people who can adequately answer that one are those who had the procedure as adults after their first sexual experience. Other than that, we look at basic biology. The foreskin has multiple nerve endings and protects the glans from abrasion. Removing it also removes both the nerve endings and the protective qualities. To do so when the foreskin is working perfectly normally is unnecessary and as such, violates the no harm principle.

    When challenged on the subject they’ve even suggested that their (Claimed many) ladyfriends expressed preference for a male organ thus trimmed.

    This is so jaw droppingly wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start – except, perhaps to ask those lady friends how they would like to be forcibly surgically altered to suit the sexual preferences of their male partners.

    I’m with the ban to the point that mutilating the testicles or shaft is unnecessary and downright wicked, but outlawing male circumcision? No.

    It’s not about which part of the body is removed, though, is it? It is about the basic principle of removing any body part without the express informed consent of the owner. It is child abuse, frankly.

    Presumably the motivation is medical then, in which case, one assumes the parents think they were/are acting in the best interests of their children?

    The medical profession in the USA would like you to believe this as it is a nice little money spinner for them. The reality is rather different. Most European males are not circumcised and the claimed malaises caused by the foreskin are not prevalent – we don’t for example, have an AIDS epidemic. The reality is that circumcision as a cultural practice in the USA comes to us courtesy of the same control freaks who tried to outlaw alcohol and tobacco. John Kellogg (he of cornflakes fame) was one of those who believed that it would stop small boys masturbating. Far from having medical benefits its intention is rather more mundane and puritan.

    Infants should be able to rely on their parents looking after their best interests. Handing them over to either a religious leader or a doctor to have unnecessary surgery is a betrayal of that trust and parental responsibility. Although I do have some sympathy with those parents who report the hassle and nagging from medics itching to hack off the foreskins of their newborn sons.

    Bottom line here, the arguments in favour of routine circumcision are mere excuses in an attempt to justify something that is indefensible – the deliberate and violent assault against the body of a minor. We would never allow such an assault against an adult. Why, therefore, do we not extend the same courtesy and respect to the bodies of our children?

  11. I don’t doubt you are right that there is not a good medical basis for this operation (I’m not circumcised and I wouldn’t consider it for my offspring unless there was a specific medical need) but if the parents think there is, then I have to support their right to make that decision.

    Anything else is just the same old nanny state, nudging, we know what’s best for you so now run along then and do it or else approach you so rightly rail against elsewhere.

  12. Anything else is just the same old nanny state, nudging, we know what’s best for you so now run along then and do it or else approach you so rightly rail against elsewhere.

    I’m afraid I cannot agree here. It is not nanny statism to outlaw assault – it is quite rightly prosecuted when it happens. Any unnecessary surgery without the consent of the person being operated upon is assault. Parents do not own their childrens’ bodies and agreeing to surgery that is not medically necessary for their health is colluding with that assault. Prosecuting parents who assault their children is hardly an example of the nanny state.

    If you want to test for consistency, is it okay for parents to have a little finger of the left hand lopped off to satisfy cultural, religious or aesthetic purposes? If not, why not? The principle is identical – just a different body part.

  13. Hi,

    In my opinion, Russel Crowe shouldn’t have been blamed, it was only his personal belief. He is just a simple actor, he has nothing to do with religion (such as priests, etc), the opinion exposed was only his personal opinion so there is nothing bad. I’m not really fond of their ritual either. Thanks for sharing!

    Best regards,

    Cadouri Victor

  14. Good grief! Something that jews and muslims can be united on. I can see the slogans now:- “Helmets of the world unite against Anteater repression”. Or something.

    I wonder when the nspcc will get involved, likening the smacking of naughty children as EXACTLY THE SAME as genital mutilation. Yawn.

    For the record, I am of the opinion that genital mutilation of children should be completely stamped out. And so should the nspcc.

  15. I find myself in total agreement with Longrider on this matter. It is an area where i find no incongruency with libertarian thought at all; even a truly Libertarian society would, I should hope, include firm legislation to protect the weakest members of it’s society from this type of assault. I would probably take it a stage further (albeit in an arguably more Paternalistic direction) and outlaw the piercing of children’s ears before a ‘to-be-determined’ age of consent. Where this were to be set I do not know, but I do know that I am filled with righteous anger on behalf of the child when I see infants of only a few months old with their ears pierced.

  16. For the record, I am of the opinion that genital mutilation of children should be completely stamped out. And so should the nspcc.

    Which is worse, circumcision or the NSPCC? There’s only one way to find out.

  17. Where this were to be set I do not know, but I do know

    Probably fairly young as it is not an invasive procedure and a piercing can be allowed to effectively close in later years should the individual no longer want to wear the jewellery. So at a point where the child is sufficiently self-aware to be able to understand what they want and be aware of what it involves – not very much as it turns out. It doesn’t even hurt.

  18. An infant is not the property of its parents. If the parents choose to assault and mutilate an infant they should go to jail. For a long time. It is that simple, really.

Comments are closed.