Robert DG Smith
:Google Is the Last Company I'd Begrudge for Avoiding Taxes
Emma Seery
:The Truth About British Treasure Islands
Harry Cooper
:A Referendum on Europe Tomorrow Would Not Stop Ukip
Alice Farmer
:A Real-Life 'Hunger Games'
Ed Miliband
:A Distant and Distracted Cameron Cannot Tackle Tax Avoidance
Last week the German court in Cologne ruled that circumcision by parents of sons is an unlawful act. This ruling will be enforced even if performed by a qualified doctor, making them liable to prosecution.
Is this a landmark ruling to remove religious liberty or an insidious return of anti-semiticism and a rise of Islamophobia in Europe? These are the questions that need to be answered by our leaders and senior lawmakers.
Approximately one-sixth to one-third of males worldwide are circumcised. In Judaism, where circumcision has been a tradition for over 40 centuries, it is considered a commandment from God. In Islam, it is widely practiced and in the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that circumcision was a "law for men and a preservation of honour for women" though it is not mentioned in the Koran. Muslims are currently the largest single religious group to practice circumcision.
Could it be possible that judges in Cologne didn't know what happened the last time Germany went down this road? One of Hitler's first enactments was to outlaw the Jewish method of slaughter.
The other was to ban circumcision.
Jews and Europe go back a long way. The struggle of Jews in Europe has added several words to the human vocabulary - words like expulsion,final solution, inquisition, blood libel, mass genocide, systematic killing, ghetto, pogrom and holocaust.
This case - like the banning of the kosher slaughtering of animals by the Dutch parliament, which has been reversed- illustrates the difficulty Jews are facing in Europe today. Both cases initially had nothing to do with Jews but were directed predominantly against Muslims, whose population vastly out numbers that of Jews in every country in Europe. They are part of the backlash against the misguided policy of multiculturalism, adopted by most European countries in the 1970s.
By ruling that Jews and Muslims performing one of their most ancient sacred rituals are abusing the rights of the child, the German court has banned something that is fundamental to each of these two ancient religions.
Instead of Muslims fighting Jews and Jews fighting Muslims - perhaps they can finally come together and fight to defend their basic right to religious freedom.
Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks: Europe's New Anti-Semitism
"Spokesman says right to circumcision must be restored as a matter of urgency." Except when it comes to girls, then we have to arrest the parents for child abuse and put the children in protective custody, because obviously those parents don't have their child's best interest in mind.
And the quotes just keep coming:
"Circumcision represents the basis for belonging to the Jewish [fill in the blank] community. It has been practised for 4,000 years and cannot be changed," he said." Once again, except when it comes to girls, despite the facts that it represents the basis for belonging to whatever community they are from and it has been practiced just as long as male circumcision.
The EXACT same reasoning used to justify why its ok to circumcise boys is used to circumcise girls. The laws that protect one sex, but not the other are entirely discriminatory.
not slicing off living flesh.
Be honest. State the act truthfully. "To engage in penile reduction surgery
on persons unable to consent, or not . . . "
And based on this argument, I guess you must support female genital scarring, since Muhammad was for it. Unless you are an "Islamophobe", yes? You do support longstanding cultural traditions, don't you???
The World Health Organization separated the female circumcision procedure into four categories. Type 1 circumcision is the removal of the clitoral prepuce, which is very similar to the prepuce of a penis, which is removed during male circumcision. This is the most basic procedure of female circumcision and the only procedure that would be allowed in Islam. The other procedures, types 2 and 3, where the labia minora, labia majora and clitoris may be extracted, are considered forbidden as they carry with them too many possibilities of bodily harm.
I asked a specific question. Will you answer it?
It would seem to me that any surgery that unnecessarily removes healthy tissue for purely cosmetic reasons is bodily harm - thus, both male and female circumcision are bodily harm.
Now the descendants of the perpetrators however reformed they may be, tell Jewish people they don't have the right to "disfigure" their children.
surely that can't be for real!
In fact, they prefer it. Israel became concerned in 2004 when twice as many ex-Soviet Jews immigrated to that terrible terrible country as went to Israel. Clearly, those terrible, terrible people must be doing something right. =LOL=
"these JEWS CHOOSE" what does that mean? Jews have been living in Germany and throughout western Europe for well over 1000 years, they have not migrated there recently as your message suggest.
Why should they be forced to live in Israel if they are German, French or wherever? Are their movements restricted?
What does the reference to "terrible terrible" and "LOL" mean?
This clause was put there in 1948 and if I remember correctly, it reflects the human rights charta. The reason for its existence is that Germans and other civilised countries don't tolerate hands chopped off like some Muslim countries do. Australia is a bit in a bind. Physical integrity of the body must be respected, but the indiginous still like to spear people who were disobedient, thus landing society with costs for disabled.
Why don't you go to the Bundestag and request a change of the constitution. But it must reflect a little violation like circumcision is allowed, but chopping off hands or the like is not, and a 2/3 majority is required.
And I support the ban on circumcision, in general. And I'm still calling you out for being deliberately misleading.
You present readers with the false notion that the ban on circumcision is either a) a landmark ruling to remove religious liberty or b) an insidious return of anti-semiticism and a rise of Islamophobia in Europe.
You choose not to remind readers that health professionals find circumcision offers no benefit to males living in 21st century Germany. And you choose not to remind readers that we have been fighting for years to ban female genital mutilation, while many of us ignore male genital mutilation for no other reason than we're more familiar with it.
The burden is entirely on you, Ms. Ruddock, to explain clearly and convincingly why female genital mutilation can be banned and criminalized, but male genital mutilation should not be.
Are you incapable of doing that?
I can do it. Others can do it. Can you NOT do that?
Are you content merely to raise alarms about Nazis and anti-Semitism and the holocaust?
In a new study, published in the January 6 issue of PLoS ONE, found that there are gross changes in the penis's microbiome following circumcision, suggesting that shifts in the bacterial environment could account, in part, for the differences in HIV infection. Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men, these bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect.
There has been no advantage shown to female genital mutilation.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23477339/1441224426/name/JLM_boyle_hill.pdf
http://atlc.org/Resources/Downloads/AJPMGreenetAl2010.pdf
http://www.zimeye.org/wp-content/live_images/2012/01/44-419-1-PB.pdf
And there actually have been studies that have shown benefits to female circumcision. A 2009 study by Stallings et al. showed that in Tanzaniana women who had been circumcised had roughly half the risk of HIV infection compared to intact women.
So, to claim that male circumcision is proven to be beneficial while female circumcision is only mutilation seems to miss the mark.
Err.
The child cannot consent to an operation done purely on the say-so of some long dead fruit-cakes.
You completely miss the point, this is not child protection it's persecution of two minorities the Muslim and Jewish communities. xenophobia and racism in like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Fascism and intolerance comes in many forms, today's is neo-leftist in nature, masking itself in liberalism. the result is the same however well intentioned some people may be in their idealism.
I repeat Nazi Germany started with democracy and then anti-racial laws, leading to the Holicaust itself. What would you have said if you were around that time? Hitler had a right to enact any laws he wanted, as he was democratically elected?
the point is Germany is a liberal democracy and a beacon economically and politically to the rest of Europe, which is turning nasty very quickly.
For a German court, to legally rule against the constituion, that practices undertaken for many centuries are illegal is an invitation to leave the country for many and a huge restriction on religious freedom.
When Hitler's Nazi party was quite legitimately elected, in 1933 among its first acts were the banning of circumcision and ritual or kosher slaughter of animals.
Accepting institutionalised bigotism of this sort is a step down the same road.
It is very easy to make the linguistic points you make, but the issue here is of people's morals lifestyles and beliefs. Some people have a heritage of religion morals and practice and have a complete right to uphold that, especially as thier actions are for the good of the entire nation. What next next are you going to suggest the Australians force the Aboriginals to wear shoes, so their feet don't get hurt by the rocks?
People have an inviolable right to bring up their children the way they see fit, especialy when the ethic that comes from is the entire basis of Judeo-Christian philosophy, including humanism and Christian socialism. People have right to bring up their children to believe in fairies if they want or even to be neoFascists.....
People have a right to live their lives as decent human beings and the last time this kind of totalitarian expression was made, the world stood back and millions died like dogs in concentration and logout camps. All that needed to happen was for no-one to make too much of a fuss
The latter, however, is not simply an attack on religious freedom. Circumcision is a painful ritual performed on someone who has not given any consent. It can result in the loss of the boy's penis or even death. Even when no complications occur, circumcision violates the newborn's freedom of religion by marking in his flesh a religion that he has not consciously chosen to follow.
Secondly there is no way this can be considered a "violation of the newborns freedom" as you state. The child is the product of his parents and when he is grown up he will then have the chance to choose whether or not to follow a religion. Would you ban Christian children from being baptised because they might drown in the process or suffer water on the lung?
There is also no evidence to support your assertion that circumcision "can result in loss of the penis or death" in fact a World Health Orgnaisation study recently states it can bring an improvement in HIV transmission rates of above 60% and recommends it as huge step forward in this direction.
PS: Hitler did not ban circumcision, in fact, he intentionally let it remain, since "dropping trou" provided easy identification.
Chopping off bits of a child because of the superstitions and fears of its parents is barbaric.
There is evidence to suggest that it was done eons ago as (1) medical necessity, as lets face it, people were not so self aware of personal hygiene, and (2) the move away from certain pagan rites, which was about pleasure.
Just hoping that such will be banned in the UK!
Ancient rituals aside, is it really necessary nowadays?