ICELAND: Parliament May Cave to Pressure to Call Off Circumcision Restrictions

Not too long ago, I posted on the latest bill in Iceland to restrict circumcision to consenting adults.

Circumcision advocates want to call it a "ban," but if putting an age limit on circumcision is a "ban," then alcohol is "banned" in the United States.

Oh no! What to do. Children can't buy beer and those who sell or buy it for them are defying the law!

There are also laws against sex with minors, which means there's a "ban" on sex too!

Or freedoms are being taken away! Oh noes!

Well anyway, according to Arutz Shevah, Israel National News, Iceland is "dropping" the ban.

I mean, measure.

Well, not quite yet, but it seems it's getting there.

According to the article linked above, parliament’s judicial committee recommended against its passage.

That doesn't exactly mean the measure has actually been "dropped" yet, parliament has yet to make a decision.

Also, a rabbi breaks Godwin's Law by invoking Hitler.

"The Nazis enacted such a law in 1933 and we know how it ended," Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the CER, said at a conference in Iceland organized by Protestant and Catholic European groups.

There are laws against female circumcision. How have those ended?

I think the world will be better off once male infant genital mutilation is banned, and the practice is relegated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think that day is today, and when that measure does fail, people should not be surprised. I think there are alternative solutions that would satisfy both parties, and those ought to be pursued instead.

Intactivists have a long road ahead of them.

Related Links:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

It's been a while since I've written, and I don't have time to write a post dedicating the time and effort that this issue deserves, so I'm going to make this quick.

The long and the short of it is that there is a ban on circumcision being talked about in Iceland, and predictably, religious groups, those who practice the forced circumcision of non-consenting boys and some who don't, are clutching their pearls.

The bill rightly describes the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be a violation of basic human rights, and suggests a 6-year prison term for anyone found guilty of "removing sexual organs in whole or in part."

There is an exception in the bill for medical necessity, which is actually how all other surgery works; under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Addressing religious traditions, it insists the "rights of the child" always exceed the "right of the parents to give their children guidance when it comes to religion."

The move follows advice from doctors in Denmark, who have said boys under the age of 18 should not be circumcised; the Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children.

Backlash From Religious Advocates
As almost anyone would have guessed, the move to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting males is already being condemned as "an attack on religious freedom."

One of the first critics of the proposal actually came from the President of the Catholic Church in the European Union.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

It is interesting that he cites lack of "scientific basis," seeing as religious groups circumcise as a matter of religious conviction, which has zero to do with science.

I should also inquire about the validity of his claim, whether he has a degree in urology, pediatrics, surgery or even in medicine at all.

The reality of the situation is that not a single respected medical organization recommends the practice of forced male infant circumcision.

All of them, including our very own AAP, cite that "the benefits are not great enough."

Not surprisingly, Muslim and Jewish groups are already condemning this as an attack on their religious freedom.

We've been here before

7 Years ago, a similar ban was proposed in San Francisco, and although it was put on the ballot, religious groups made enough noise to have it struck off before anyone could even vote on it.

In a rare display of alliance, Jewish and Muslim groups actually coalesced, cooperated and spoke unanimously against the ban. I don't think they quite agree that female circumcision should be protected as "religious freedom," however.

Which brings us to the crux of why there is a problem with a lack of a ban on male infant circumcision to begin with.

Sexist, self-serving double-standards
Mention male infant circumcision, and it seems to be this given; that suggestion that it should be banned is "an attack on religious freedom."

Mention that female infant circumcision is seen as a religious obligation, and suddenly the "religious freedom" argument flies out the window.

In most Western countries, the forced genital cutting of girls and women is banned, and there is no exception for people who see it as a religious conviction.

Actually, there will be no shortage of people saying that since female circumcision isn't written in say, the Koran or any major holy book, that it can't "really" be considered "religious."

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

Male circumcision wouldn't be mentioned in the Koran either.

It is "fitrah," mentioned in Hadith, but not once does it appear in the Koran.

Which is funny, because the same is also true for female circumcision.

I think it's funny, that self-serving people who want to justify their own "religious tradition" of forcibly cutting the genitals of boys have the nerve to pretend to dictate to others what their religious beliefs will be.

For better or for worse, the great majority of Muslims in South East Asia believe that female circumcision is as Islamic a virtue for girls and women as male circumcision is for boys and men.

And who are others to tell them what their beliefs will be?

If Jewish scholar Leonard Glick is correct, male infant circumcision as a "covenant" does not appear in the first manuscripts of the Torah; it would appear that this mitzvah was grafted out of the blue at the very last minute. The case can be made that "male infant circumcision wasn't originally part of the covenant."

Ah, but then Jewish defenders of the practice will turn around and say "Non-Jews shouldn't tell Jews how to practice their religion."

Isn't it funny how the same people  say "Well female circumcision isn't actually Muslim practice," will turn around and tell you to mind your own business when you dare scrutinize their religion?

The bottom line
It boils down to this; either "parental choice," "religious freedom" and/or "my culture/tradition" works to justify the forced genital cutting of children, or it doesn't.

It is inconsistent and sexist to have a ban that protects girls and only girls, regardless of the religious conviction of their parents, but allow the forced genital cutting of boys "for religious reasons."

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors needs to be allowed, or condemned for all.

You can't have it both ways.

A long way to go
I end this post by saying that, while I think there ought to be a ban, that if there is a ban on female genital cutting with no exception for religion, it only follows there needs to be a similar ban for male genital cutting, it's simply unrealistic and it's going to backfire.

Recall the attempt to ban forced male infant circumcision in San Francisco; not only were religious groups successful in getting the measure off the ballot before anyone could cast their vote, opportunist politicians also made names for themselves by legally preventing any further attempts at a ban.

Female circumcision was easily banned in Western countries because people already saw female circumcision with disdain.

At the moment, most people simply don't see forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting male child's genitals as a big deal.

It is often said that in a huge movement like this, laws are the very last thing to change.

During the times of slavery, when there were calls to outlaw the practice, those who wanted to continue to keep slaves, doubled-down on their intentions and enacted legislature that "protected" their "rights."

People who are hell-bent on preserving this practice of forced genital cutting are not going to give up without a fight.

But it's going to take time to get people on our side and finally legally condemn the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

I predict that the measure in Iceland is going to fail.

Icelandic leaders are going to cave to pressure to "protect religious freedom."

But this should be of no surprise, and it should in no way be used to measure our progress as intactivists.

That this measure is actually being considered is progress enough.

Even if this measure fails, we shouldn't be discouraged, I'm not going to be discouraged; I'm still going to be right here speaking out against the basic human rights violation that is the forced genital cutting of minors.

Related Posts

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

Don't get me wrong. I am against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals. There is nothing that I would like to see more than to have the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting children abolished, and that the individuals that do this be put in jail and/or taken to court by the men who resent this violation upon their bodies.

All in all, I'm glad somebody managed to propose a ban on circumcision, and that it has gone on as far as it has. Never before has our cause garnered this much attention. It was about time somebody did something to put this issue "in your face," and nothing gets people's attention quicker than the proposition to enact legislation.

Up until now, it was rather taboo to talk about circumcision. Questioning circumcision got you labeled an anti-Semite, or it was dismissed as a "non-issue." The only context in which it was acceptable to talk about circumcision was to try and make little "snip-snip" jokes, or to talk about all the "health benefits" of cutting off part of a child's penis. The ethics of performing needless surgery on a healthy, non consenting individual were never addressed. Whenever circumcision is presented in our media, it is always to secure acquiesence to circumcision as an "age old tradition," or "one of many decisions parents have to make for their children." Our opponents would call it a "non-issue" and laugh it off.

Well, they're not laughing anymore.

In fact, religious and (at least on the surface) non-religious groups have begun to coalesce, and are trying to shut down the debate. Could this be it? The beginning of the end?

In my opinion, we've got a long way to go.

The US is simply not ready to handle the fallout of such a ban. Too many parents see this as their "right," and the state would have to deal with the logistics of arresting countless renegade mohels and doctors. There is too much misinformation in our country concerning the normal development of human male genitalia. The normal development and function of the foreskin is hardly taught in American medical curriculum. Too often, the only thing that is ever taught about the foreskin is that it must be cut off at birth, so that's all American doctors ever learn or know.

Assuming the ban was instated tomorrow, parents would still forcibly retract their sons' foreskins because misinformed (or willfully ignorant?) doctors would tell them that this is what they need to do "to clean underneath," causing iatrogenic problems and making the necessity of circumcision a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Knife-happy doctors would still prescribe circumcision for any and every problem, real or percieved, an intact child may have with his penis, and parents would agree to a circumcision because they simply wouldn't know any better. We've still got a long way to go to sway the public in our favor, and to change the flawed curriculum regarding male anatomy.

So on the one hand, it's exciting for me to learn that there is actually a ban on circumcision on the ballot. Nothing in our country ever got changed because people sat around wishin' and a hopin'. Human rights issues in this country were addressed because somebody had the courage to stand up and question the status quo and to challenge social constructs and expectations. Just imagine what would have never changed if people had never taken action; slavery, women's rights, gay rights etc.

I think that it's a shame that religious interest groups are trying to silence the debate before it even begins. If they are so confident that the ban will be "soundly defeated," then why the need to keep it from the voters? Intactivists need to unite and fight to make sure the ban stays on the November ballot. We can't let religious interest groups derail the democratic process. Last time I checked, church and state are separate, and religious interest groups simply can't intervene and silence debate they don't like.

On the other hand though, I think the ban ought to fail. I believe the ban's real purpose is to bring attention to our cause, and it has served this purpose wonderfully. Realistically, though, we have to admit to ourselves that, at least for now, it could never actually work. If the ban happens to make it to the November ballot, we shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when it's voted down. Rather, we should be thankful for the opportunity to further our cause and keep fighting. We've got a long way to go, and I think it's a mistake to think that our fight would end would that this ban was enacted. America is quick to brag about its own talents but slow to admitting its own mistakes, and in finally getting this country's attention, the fight to educate America has only just begun.

We shouldn't give up the ship just yet; we need to fight for our right to be heard. We should persevere until the very end. But let's keep our feet on the ground; our country is not ready for a ban against circumcision.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
~Mahatma Gandhi

DISCLAIMER: What I have expressed in this blog post is my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists.