German Court says child circumcision 'an assault'

[Princess Luna]

Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court has ruled.

The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled on Tuesday that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.

"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court said.

The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.

A few days after the operation, with the boy bleeding heavily, his parents took him to a hospital. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm.

The doctor was acquitted by a lower court that judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.

The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous bodily harm but also ruled that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation around circumcision.

The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children.

'Court not scared off'

"The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community.
The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination".

The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann. "This religious right is respected in every country in the world."

Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the ruling was "enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty".

"Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance," said Putzke.

The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.

Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.

The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...137489117.html

I support this, parents have no right to abuse their status as caretakers to mutilate an individual, who has no way of consenting, because of their religious beliefs.

[Krano]

"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court said.

I will guarantee the amounth of circumcisions will drop because of this which is of course a good thing, hey Bob do you want to cut part of your dick off? uhhh... no?...

[seventeethdecember2016]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

[Book O'Dead]

I don't agree with outlawing circumcision and, as it happened in Germany makes very nervous. And I'm not even Jewish or Muslim against whom this law will more heavily fall.

I don't like the smell of it, and I don't mean the foreskin either!

[Drosophila]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

That seems a bit far-fetched. Circumcision isn't exclusive to Judaism, and isn't practiced by all Jews.

[Veovis]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

If some religion said that a baby's fingernails must be ripped off X days after birth, would banning the practice amount to religious discrimination?

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people, but why is the male penis the exception to this rule?

[Igor]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

Well fuck the Jewish law, then. Being Jewish (or Muslim) doesn't give the parents the right to give their children permanent genital modifications for no actual reason. It has nothing to do with antisemitism.

[GPDP]

I'm all for religious tolerance, but circumcision is a practice that should have been banned long ago.

I assume most of us are against things like Sharia Law, so why not oppose Jewish Law as well? Because we're afraid of being branded anti-Semitic? I'm going to go ahead and assume that's the case here.

[Book O'Dead]

That seems a bit far-fetched. Circumcision isn't exclusive to Judaism, and isn't practiced by all Jews.

Perhaps you're correct but it makes no difference to people who do practice male circumcision as matter of religious custom. I think it invades their privacy and violates their religious freedom. Moreover it's stupid to regulate something that is common practice even among non-Semites and is performed routinely for innumerable reasons.

What's to stop a parent who decides that his newborn infant should be circumcised for hygienic reasons? His religion?

And so what if people decide to throw a party when their male children are deprived of so small a thing as a foreskin?

[hatzel]

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people

The very obvious implication here being that Muslims, Jews, vast swathes of Africa etc. are either 'barbaric' or not 'sensible people'...

[Book O'Dead]

If some religion said that a baby's fingernails must be ripped off X days after birth, would banning the practice amount to religious discrimination?

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people, but why is the male penis the exception to this rule?

No, because they're not the same thing, morally, physically and even numerically: Men have ten fingers and only one pee-pee.

Come to think of it so do women!

[Nox]

This is a victory for antisemitism.

There's always one idiot who uses this fallacious argument to oppose the banning of a form of child abuse.

When someone's religious beliefs infringe someone else's human rights/wellbeing, then there's a big problem. Circumcision does just that.

What you just said is the same as saying abortion clinics are a victory for antisemitism.

[Blanquist]

ｇｒｅａｔ　ｎｅｗｓ！　ｉ　ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ　１００％

[Veovis]

The very obvious implication here being that Muslims, Jews, vast swathes of Africa etc. are either 'barbaric' or not 'sensible people'...

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

[Book O'Dead]

I'm all for religious tolerance, but circumcision is a practice that should have been banned long ago.

I assume most of us are against things like Sharia Law, so why not oppose Jewish Law as well? Because we're afraid of being branded anti-Semitic? I'm going to go ahead and assume that's the case here.

You can't be for religious tolerance if you say its okay to suppress harmless religious practices.

Also, it makes no sense to be against circumcision and at the same time be pro-choice.

[pushing my chest and jaw as if I were ready to duke it out]: Think about that one, buddy!

[Book O'Dead]

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

How about "prick"?

[Veovis]

How about "prick"?

I was thinking of something with more adjectives in front, but that will do.

[Book O'Dead]

I was thinking of something with more adjectives in front, but that will do.

Thank you. You're a gentleperson.

However, I still think that there is a taint of the anti-Semitic behind that "don't clip your baby's pee-pee law".

[Veovis]

Thank you. You're a gentleperson.

However, I still think that there is a taint of the anti-Semitic behind that "don't clip your baby's pee-pee law".

What about Islamophobia? There are a lot more Muslims that mutilate their babies, (although to their credit, there is a small minority that refuses to do so).

[hatzel]

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

As one of our fallen soldiers would say...

whitemansay.txt

Anybody who's spent any time whatsoever amongst Europe's Muslims (not to mention anybody else) will know that they (rightly) realise that legal condemnations of Islamic practices - be it circumcision, slaughter, headscarves, mosque-building, whatever - are wrapped up in racist and discriminatory politics intended to threaten, harass and (very literally!) criminalise whole minority populations. Which is why they are actively resisting these kinds of policies (and, speaking from a Jewish perspective, this is actually one of the precious few fields of struggle where Jews and Muslims are still unconditionally acting side-by-side, rather than the unfortunate conflicts that we normally see - unfortunate for us, that is, but it certainly plays into the hands of the divide-and-conquerors up top, so they'd probably object to my calling it 'unfortunate').

You'd also know that plenty have this strange idea that the Left is full of annoying middle-class white student dickheads (with only the most superficial or understandings or, in fact, even interests, in race relations). Part of this is because annoying middle-class white student dickhead leftists are often the very people who are pushing through these laws- often in collaboration with right-wing anti-immigration parties, as has been seen in the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. Sometimes I wonder why the downtrodden of Europe don't always feel the Left has anything to offer them...oh no, I lied, I don't wonder at all. Nor, in fact, do I blame them

Support it or not, but keep the flagrant racism (all this talk of savages, oh my!) out of it, if you don't mind...