UK: Circumcision – above the law?

Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2009-10-02 00:13

Article here. Excerpt:

'The term "genital mutilation" sounds far less civilised that the commonly used term "circumcision". Yet the former is only ever used in relation to the removal of parts of female reproductive organs, and the latter, generally, for the removal of the foreskin from a male's penis. Make no mistake, a circumcision is the mutilation of genitals regardless of the terminology.

Male children from the Jewish and Muslim faiths have their foreskins removed at a young age under as part of religious practice. This is an irreversible procedure that would otherwise be classed as grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The fact that it is performed with parental consent has been deemed sufficient in allowing this procedure to be performed under English law.
...
Furthermore, if circumcision of males is allowed on religious grounds, then the ruling in the case of Adesanya must have been erroneous. The court here decided that a Nigerian woman could be prosecuted for cutting her teenaged sons' faces according to her cultural norms. It seems that freedom to commit GBH only extends to males, and only then of particular faiths or cultural backgrounds.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Incidents such as this news clip highlight the CDC's wrongheaded stance on circumcision. (Look at fourth box beneath main video screen.)

On thing that annoyed but did not surprise me about last night's (10/2) newscast was that they were alarmed at the botched operation but did not criticize the value and cruelty of circumcision itself.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Sat, 2009-10-03 13:47

I just clicked on a story on AOL about a father that gave his 7 year old son a tattoo of a gang symbol.

http://tinyurl.com/yj8k9bc

The father could have faced a life sentence (seems extreme to me), but the charges were dismissed.

What I find interesting is that the defense attorneys compared the tattoo to parents who choose to have their child circumcised, saying it is "no different".

Yet, here is a quote from a law professor regarding the case:

"It's an interesting issue," Levenson said. "I don't think kids belong to their parents. You can give a child the haircut you want him to have, but you can't permanently disfigure a child."

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2009-10-03 17:50

.... tattoos are most certainly not permanent and are easily removed.

REMOVAL of the foreskin however, absolutely is permanent and reconstructive surgery is cosmetic at best - the nerves that are destroyed with circumcision are never able to be replaced.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Paragon on Sat, 2009-10-03 18:19

Circumcision = MALE GENITAL MUTILATION.

So knock off the hypocrisy already!!!

Gunner Retired
Falsely Accused Father & Disenfranchised Parent
Georgia State F4J Coordinator
National Parents Rights Assoc Research Consultant
FCRA, AFRA & BHS Armorer
and KITTENS DADDY!!!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Gunner Retired on Mon, 2009-10-05 04:17