One of the fairly predictable outcomes of the recent decision by a German court that infant circumcision for cultural or religious reasons constitutes bodily harm was the righteous indignation of those religious groups that practise it.
European Jewish and Muslim groups have joined forces to defend circumcision for young boys on religious grounds after a German regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm.
It is bodily harm. There is no other explanation for the chopping off of part of a person’s body for anything other than health reasons. The issue of consent is what matters – and an infant cannot give consent. Naturally those who support it will argue that this is a parental responsibility, so therefore they give their consent on behalf of the infant. For life-saving surgery, I would have no hesitation in agreeing. However, to hack off part of someone’s body without their express consent – because they are too young to give it – where there is no health reason, indeed bodily harm. The court is correct. The justification that some old book written by someone (unknown) thousands of years ago is a justifiable reason would be laughable in any other context. We do not cut of other parts of children’s bodies because some mythical entity says we should. Besides, if this mythical entity is so perfect and the foreskin is such an offence to it, then why did it design such offence into our bodies in the first place? The excuse often used for cultural reasons – that of hygiene – is so bloody risible as to be dismissed without any further consideration. We wash the rest of our bodies, FFS!
Of course, if cutting off the foreskin is so important to Muslims and Jews alike – who have managed to put aside their deeply held differences for the purposes of mutilating their male infants – why not wait until the young man is of an age to make the decision himself? Makes perfect sense. Explain the reasons and see what he says, eh? I’m sure he will accept the loss of his foreskin to make his covenant with Abraham, willingly…
Of course, it is far more likely to see the practice die out in a generation as young men decide that, actually, they would like to keep their foreskins, thank you very much, and that would be no bad thing.
Frankly, that this barbaric practice still festers in the early 21st century is an outrage. So, a German court applying reasonable common sense, has come to a sound decision. Now let the fireworks begin…
Circumcision is a treatment for the surprisingly common condition of Phimosis where the foreskin adheres to, fails to retract from, or restricts the glans of the penis. As these religions began in warmer countries where a dirty willy could more readily cause fester and rot (As well as being linked with cancer of the willy and increased UTI risk), perhaps their folk tradition is not so pointless or ‘cruel’? It’s only skin.
The reasons are highly likely to be cultural. However, given that washing one’s willy renders it unnecessary, it most certainly is cruel. And it serves a useful function protecting the glans, so it ain’t just skin.
As an addendum, the “it’s only skin” comment is a matter of context, not principle. The principle stands whatever is being cut off.
It’s an interesting one, all right. I foresee a lot of appeals to European Court.
So do I. I’m ordering in the popcorn.
Or why not sod off to a country where such barbarity is allowed.
Hm. WHICH court?
This could still be appealed at Landesgericht (County court in U.K) Bundesgericht/Bundesverfassungsgericht, (State court) level. IF this was just a “lower court” decission.
As Julia (July 12, 2012 at 17:51) points out, it could go even lower, to the E.U court.
We have not heard the last of this. Even when this is the first I have heard. (And I WORK in the system!)
A Cologne District Court, apparently. This was following an appeal by the prosecutor when the doctor who performed the operation was found not guilty.
Tja. Then it has a long way to go. IF they are willing, or able, to take the appeal that far. You only get the justice you can afford.
Hopefuly, in this case, they can NOT afford it.
The key to this debate lies in the psychology of what motivates a man to cut his son’s penis. In a wider abuse context it is well known that many child abusers were themselves abused as a child.
For a circumcised Father to decide not to circumcise his son may require him to recognise that his parents made the wrong choice. This is close to him concluding that his parents abused him. As most circumcised men have a good relationship with their parents, this makes it harder for them to think outside the box.
Another difficulty is that circumcision is much more common in wealthy families e.g. those of politicians, lawyers and judges. Therefore even if one logical thinking judge decides that it is time to stop this insane act, the chances are that an older judge in a higher court will overrule him or her. Then there is the great likelihood that parliament will legislate to re-legalise religious circumcision.
The churches of all the affected religions have a great deal of money to fight endless appeals for parents that can’t afford to fight. Religious groups also have huge political influence, as well as all those Bishops that sit in the House of Lords.
Ultimately it will be a political solution, probably a fudge which ends up pleasing nobody. Clearly countries like Israel will never outlaw it, so determined parents will always be able to take circumcision holidays. But if Europe could eventually outlaw it in another 30 years’ time, it would be a great step forward for millions of unborn men.
Some good points PaulC.
I would argue that it could be pointed out to these young circumsized men that have good relationships with their parents, that their parents simply did not know any better having been raised within a community where circumsision is seen as “normal”. This might make it easier for them to think outside this particular box.
Regarding “circumsision holidays”, perhaps the same laws that apply to peadophiles committing offences in another country could be extended to include circumsision. It is after all child abuse.
I note that those opposed to this ban are already making pathetic comparisons with ear piercing and even baptism. An ear piercing will heal in time if the ear ring is taken out, but I have yet to hear of a foreskin (or clitoris) re-growing – the damage is permanent. As for the “they’ll be banning baptism next”, that one really buggers belief. Splashing a baby with a bit of water is hardly the same as mutilating its genitals.
For once I find myself firmly on the side of those who would ban.
Save me some of that popcorn LR.
Especially when you consider that the case resulting in the verdict was brought because the baby involved was taken into the A&E with bleeding. In London a coroner’s court recently heard about a 28day old child that bled to death following this wicked abuse – accidental death, my arse. It should have been homicide and the Rabbi prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No, hardly the same thing at all.
A better comparison might be with cochlea implants. There is no immediate health reason to have one as there is a lot of support for deaf people and deaf people can survive in the big wide world without too many problems. But parents put their children through major surgery, with all it’s inherent risks, so that their child can speak more normally and “enjoy” great music and sounds such as that of the parent.
Is it right to perform the implants? If so then its right to perform minor surgery on the penis.
A child cannot give informed consent to either operation, but then the child is a child. This by its very definition means that it needs some one to look after it. As this is nearly always the parent, then the parent can make any decision on behalf of the child.
Its a bit like a parent controlling their child telling them to do this and not to say that. You could ask where is the child’s right to free speech and the right to control their own life. But until a child grows up (and every child is different) they cannot make use of such rights.
At the end of the day, both operations are more to do with social norms than anything health wise. Deafness to make the child fit into society better, circumcision to allow the child to fit in with their peers. With the increased mixing of different groups as people travel further and faster and immigrate and emigrate fitting in with the norm becomes harder as their is none or the norms change. In the case of Germany, the norms have changed to mean that circumcision is not necessary any more to fit in.
But does it require the state to impose this or would it be better to leave it to die out naturally?
Sorry SadButMad but I don’t think that your comparison is meaningful. A baby who is born deaf has a serious disadvantage over a completely healthy baby i.e. a deaf baby has a defect. All baby boys are born with a foreskin, a foreskin is not a defect.
A cochlea implant operation is an operation to overcome an illness or defect i.e. hearing. Circumcision is an operation which has been routine for 2,500 years but those that advocate it are continually looking for new diseases which they can say that it prevents. It has become a cure searching for an illness. 80% of the world’s men are uncircumcised. It is irrational to perform this drastic surgery on the basis that it has been done for generations and we must keep doing it to fit in with the 20% or the worlds men who have had it done.
The practice is so established a ingrained in people’s minds that it clearly is not going to die out naturally.
As society develops and we are no longer savages, we need to evaluate all the issues, debate them, weigh them against the RIGHTS of the individual and not merely the RITES of religious groups. Hopefully one day, as a result of medical research and reasoned debate, the practice will be unlawful in developed democratic societies, but I suspect that such a day is more than a life time away from today.
XX Hopefully one day, as a result of medical research and reasoned debate, the practice will be unlawful in developed democratic societies, but I suspect that such a day is more than a life time away from today.XX
Go on, admit it, you forgot to read the origional post, right?
Thanks for reminding me that I had failed to disable comments by peasants. How wonderful life must have been when peasants only spoke when spoken to and could only afford beer on a Sunday. They were happier (and healthier) then, and the quality of life for the rest of us was so much better than in this era of freedom of information and this culture of ‘have your say’. I will enable the peasant filter.
PaulC got there before me. You really cannot make that comparison as it doesn’t hold up. The principle of liberty is that you are free to do whatever you want providing it causes no harm. Correcting a defect is a reasonable use of parental consent and is an attempt to alleviate something that is causing harm. Given that circumcision is painful, causes bleeding and can in some cases, cause death, and certainly leaves the penis disfigured, it causes harm. QED.
Give me back my foreskin! I’ve been mutilated at eight days.
Here’s a contribution from Germany. The decision has caused a lot of discussion over here. I agree totally with Longrider’s point of view but would not dare to share it with people other than my closest friends. The general public opinion is that we have to respect a tradition of several thousands of years by any means. I suspect the real problem is that it is a Jewish tradition, and with this direful history of ours, Germans don’t dare to do anything that might offend Jewish people. The first rabbis here have already misinterpreted the case that obviously Jewish are still not accepted in Germany. It seems to be impossible to separate the Jewish issue from the general violation of Human Right of Intactness. Muslim people simply assume xenophobia. Female circumcision in African countries here is broadly accepted as a cruel and dangerous violence, but logic doesn’t work in this case. The shame of committing the holocaust hinders a lot of people to see inhumane rules in the Jewish religion. Personally, I agree to help and support Jewish people wherever possible – because of history -, but I still feel free to think that they are prone to make mistakes as everyone else in this world. – To be honest, I’m quite sure that the issue will go to a higher German court, and that the decision will be taken back. The judges in Cologne have shown a tremendous amount of courage and I’m not sure that their colleagues will follow them. It has become a political, international issue, as the relationship Germany/Israel is concerned.
Those using the holocaust in an attempt to silence dissent on this are pretty repugnant, frankly. Three generations have passed since then. It is time Germans were not constantly made to feel guilty about something that happened long before most of them were born.
Regarding the holocaust, three generations seem to be nothing. The trauma is rooted incredibly deep in the collective subconscious, especially because there was almost no healing for the first and second generation. Only very few would and could talk about it on a personal level, and as so many Germans were involved in some way, it is a family issue and therefore still a personal issue. Even in my generation (being born in 1963) it is not easy to deal with that. Thank you for your kind words.