DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.

A year ago on June 2, 2017, I asked the question:

How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.

Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.

You cannot have it both ways.

Recapitulation

In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.

This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."

Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.

Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.

Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.

A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.

Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.

On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.

It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."

On the other hand, a landmark win would mean  a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.

A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

Today, we read about the outcome of this case.

History Made
So what was it going to be?

The protection of "religious freedom?"

Or the protection of basic human rights?

For all people?

The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.

On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."

The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman

I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision.

Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead. 

But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.

I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways.

The Ramifications of This Decision
I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.

Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.

Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.

The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.

Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.

The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.

In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.

Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.

Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.

This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.

It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.

The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.

Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.

The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.

Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.

Ultimately the question is this:

What is more important?

"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"

Or basic human rights?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be.

What's it going to be, FGM activists?

What's it going to be, world?

Knock-knock!

Reality is here.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Link:

Detroit Free Press: Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

If "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used as alibis to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, can they be used to justify it in girls?

The world is about to find out.

There exists an inconsistent hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the forced genital cutting of minors.

We have a two-track system that says that forcibly cutting off the foreskin of a healthy, non-consenting male child is defensible under so-called "religious freedom," as well as so-called "parental choice," but it is "mutilation" to cut the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting female child in any way shape or form.

There is no exemption for parents who wish to have their daughters' genitals cut for "cultural" or "religious reasons," though with male circumcision, only "parental choice" suffices and a doctor can perform a circumcision in a male child with for no further reason than that a parent wanted it done.

In South-East Asian countries, girls are circumcised in infancy.

In different countries around the world, including regions of Africa and South-East Asia, girls are often circumcised in infancy in pretty much the same way as boys are in the US.

When media outlets present female genital cutting, it is often generalized that all of it takes place in the bush, performed by amateur tribal shamans with crude utensils such as rusty blades, tin can remnants and glass shards. (Which is funny, because male circumcision is often performed in these exact same settings in the exact same places where female circumcision is performed in this way.)

When you say "female circumcision," the default for most Americans is to correct you and say "no, it's mutilation," citing the above, and citing infibulation (AKA "pharaonic circumcision"), where the protruding part of the clitoris is excised, the outer and inner labia excised and the remnants sewn shut to leave but a small hole for menstruation.

While infibulation exists, this is actually the rarest form of FGM, constituting only about 15% of all female genital cutting.

Most FGM is not as severe.

"Severity" is not the issue here.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that "the least severe of the practices is justifiable."

Most people in the West don't seem to be aware that infant girls can be circumcised in pretty much the same way as infant boys are, in the setting of a hospital, performed by a medical professional using pristine utensils, and excising only external, vestigial pieces of flesh, though in the Western mind, there is no acceptable amount of flesh that can be removed in a girl.

While the entire foreskin can be removed in a male for "religious" or "cultural" purposes in males, the removal of any amount of flesh in a female constitutes "mutilation" as is simply unacceptable.

Pictured here is the amount of flesh that was removed in a circumcision in South-East Asia.

The original blogger, the mother, claims it was the clitoris, which is barely visible on the blades.

 Pictured here is the freshly severed foreskin of a newborn infant in the US.

It is often claimed by female circumcision advocates that male infant circumcision as it is commonly performed in the United States is actually more severe than female circumcision is it is commonly performed in South-East Asian countries, and as readers can see for themselves, they wouldn't be exaggerating.

It is often claimed that the reason female circumcision is "more severe" in girls is supposedly because female circumcision removes the clitoris, and that without the clitoris sexual enjoyment and even orgasm aren't possible.

What is removed in female circumcision, if at all (not all FGM removes the clitoris), is the *tip* of the clitoris. Complete removal of the clitoris is actually impossible.

For this reason, even women who have undergone the most severe form of FGM can still enjoy sex and even experience orgasm, as documented by Johnsdotter and Catania.

FGM is not all the same. The WHO recognizes for different types, not all of which remove any part of the clitoris.

 FGM is not all one and the same.

For better or for worse, female infant circumcision is not seen as "mutilation" in the countries and cultures where it is performed.

In fact, it is often considered a religious requirement, known as "sunat" in South-East Asia.

Female circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by South-East Asian parents, just as male circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by American parents.

 If you ignore the fact that this is a South-East Asian parent talking about

circumcising her daughter, she would sound like any American parent on

a parenting forum like BabyCenter or BabyGaga.

We intactivists have always asked, if "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting male children, why can't it be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting female children?

The question is often circumvented with assertions that "they are not the same," because "one is more severe than the other," not to mention "the potential medical benefits of which there are zero in female circumcision."

These may or may not be true, but true or not, they would be irrelevant conclusions to the question posed.

Either "religious freedom" or "parental choice" can be used to justify the cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or they cannot.

Actually, as shown here, female circumcision can be more severe than male circumcision, and removing the labia can prevent the accumulation of smegma in females, as removing the foreskin can in males.

The fact that we do not circumcise females is testament to the fact that surgery is not necessary for hygiene.

And here, before I go on any further, I'd like to point out how in the face of scrutiny, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have to be abandoned as alibis.

These arguments are so weak and frail that after their demise, male infant circumcision advocates have to look elsewhere for recourse, in this case being "disease prevention," as if their concern for public health were genuine.

As with male infant circumcision advocates, female infant circumcision advocates are ready, complete with published "research" showing how female circumcision may be able to prevent this or that disease.

Again, because "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail.

It's Here
Anti-FGM advocates have up until today sidelined and ignored anyone who dare ask the above question, hoping we go away, but I think that by now, they're realizing that they can only do that so much.

Today, that question is staring them directly in the face, and they have to make a decision.

America has to make a decision.

Very soon, doctors, lawyers, ethicists, members on committee boards of respected medical organizations, our entire justice system will be faced with the question; how far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

How far can something be justified before it constitutes "abuse?"

Female genital cutting in any way shape or form has been illegal in the US since a federal ban against it was instituted in 1996.

No such ban exists for male genital cutting.

This insconsistency, this sexist two-track system is finally going to be challenged in a court of law.

The State of Affairs
The situation is as follows; a woman is facing charges for FGM performed in Detroit.

Not too long before that, an Ethiopian Man had been deported after serving a sentence for having her daughter circumcised.

According to Detroit News, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.

The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure.

Defense lawyers are saying the girls underwent a benign religious procedure, and that the government is overreaching. (E.g., it's not genital mutilation because it was religious.)

Nagarwala’s lawyer Shannon Smith said the doctor merely removed mucous membrane from the girls’ genitalia, placed the material on gauze pads and gave it to their families for burial. (There is a federal ban against any form of FGM regardless.)

All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a religious and cultural community based in India where FGM is practiced.

They are being held without bond pending a trial in federal court in Detroit on October 10th this year.

Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation.

The trio is accused of committing female genital mutilation, trying to cover up the crime and conspiring to cut girls as part of a procedure practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra.

Top Laywers on the Case
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired about three weeks ago by the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth has represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases. His client list includes O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Conflicts of Interest
It looks like Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish. I couldn't find much on Morganroth, except that Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

Why is this important?

Male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism.

They have personal stake in this case, because if the federal government wins this landmark case against a physician performing genital cutting on children at the request of religious parents, then the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

A Delicate Dance
So much hangs in the balance in this case.

The defense lawyers have a delicate dance to perform; the dance around the candle that FGM activists and male infant circumcision advocates have been struggling to perform for decades, only now, it's being performed in federal court.

On the one hand, a landmark win is a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision will remain unquestioned.

It also means, however, that this may result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 to be lifted, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.
 

For the Holy Day of Ashura, parents cut the tops of childrens' heads.
Harmless, really...

In some cultures, children marry early.
It's religiously sanctioned of course...

 In some cultures, children's faces are scarified.

Some belief the scars provide religious protection. Does that count?

 What if I want to tattoo my faith on my child?

What if, instead of taking my child to the doctor, I insist on praying for him?

Because I believe only god can and should heal my child from diseases?

 Where does it end?
What if I invent a new religion that says that all children

must have their ears modified to look like Princess Zelda?

On the other hand, a landmark loss means the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

This also means, however, that parents can't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under "religious freedom."

So these lawyers have to decide what's more important: protecting the most basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, or sacrificing them on the altar of "religious freedom."

You can't have it both ways.

Choose wisely.

While it seems like it's a lose-lose for them, I can't help but seeing it as a win-win for basic human rights.

As a human rights activist, I want the judge uphold the federal ban on FGM to rule in favor of basic human rights, and to condemn the actions of the people involved.

On the other, a rule in favor of "religious freedom" is a tacit admission that genital cutting is the same issue, male or female.

Actually, male circumcision and female circumcision will be legally recognized as being parallel, and neither FGM activists nor circumcision advocates will be able to deny it.

The firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females will have been officially broken down.

Normalizing and even legalizing FGM will force the public to take a closer look at the issue, and to recognize that male and female circumcision are both one and the same, for they violate the exact same principles and are defended on the exact same grounds.

In either case, I see nothing but progress in the fight for basic human rights.

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.

In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.

Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.

In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.

My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"

If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?

I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.

What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?

Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."

Why the double-standards?

Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?

Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.

Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.

Related Posts:

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

As of 1996, federal law condemns the forced cutting of female genitals in any way, shape or form, and there is no exemption for any form of female genital cutting for religious purposes.

Even the smallest "ritual nick" constitutes "female genital mutilation" (FGM) under the law, and it is a punishable criminal offense.

In contrast, male infant circumcision can be freely performed by anyone, from a doctor with a scalpel, to a parent wielding an X-acto knife. The arguments are that parents have "parental choice," and/or "religious freedom" to cut off their child's foreskin.

For whatever reason "parental choice" as an excuse to cut up a child's genitals seems to be privilege bestowed upon parents, only if their religion is Judaism, and/or only if the child is male.

If you happen to be Muslim and you believe your religious beliefs command you to cut up your daughter, or if you happen to be a parent from Africa, whose tribe dictates that female members must undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, you're out of luck.

But a couple of gynecologists have just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics urging for compromise, proposing what they call a "nick."

The argument is that this could be a substitute for "more severe" forms of FGM.

Several news sources have already started weighing in on the matter.

Perhaps thanks to intactivism, the comparison of female genital cutting and female genital cutting is becoming almost compulsory in news outlets, if but only to insist that there actually be no comparison.

On some news articles, the authors seem to have forgotten the history of male circumcision in this country, or simply didn't bother to check.

And then, almost as if by clockwork, the obligatory reference to the WHO or AAP giving their non-committal endorsement of male circumcision is made, forgetting the fact that, at least in the case of the WHO, male circumcision is endorsed on males who voluntarily comply to be circumcised, which is slightly different than forcibly performing ritual cutting on a non-consenting minor.

From the CNN article:

"...all forms of FGM are rooted in the control of female sexuality. Male circumcision has its roots in cultural and religious practices involved in enforcing cleanliness, practices that have since been validated by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Actually, male genital cutting, or "circumcision" as the authors prefer to euphemize it here, has roots in cultural and religious practices involved in attempting to curb masturbation in males, and to make them "more focused on god." The "validation," if one can even call it that, is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What is the implication here?

That it's merely a matter of changing the motives?

That if those who wished to perform female genital cutting would do it under pretense of "cleanliness," it would be more acceptable?

And why are the WHO and AAP invoked here?

I think it is interesting that they do; is the difference between female genital cutting and male genital cutting really whether or not the WHO and/or AAP "validate" it?

Or would female genital cutting be morally reprehensible regardless?

Incidentally, it seems organizations like the WHO and AAP are precisely the kind of people they're trying to woo.

These women better be careful what they wish for, or they just might get it.

Newsweek has this to say on the matter:

"Despite being perceived as a practice linked to Islam, FGM is a cultural practice that has no basis in religion. No religious texts prescribe FGM, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), while Human Rights Watch says the practice is “erroneously linked” to religion and “is not particular to any religious faith."

This is rather ballsy to be dictating people's beliefs, is it not?

The religiosity of male infant genital cutting seems to be off limits as a discussion point.

The WHO and HRW, however, will not hesitate to dictate what the beliefs of those who practice female genital cutting will be.

To be sure, the Qur'an makes no mention of either male or female genital cutting as a religious sacrament.

Female genital cutting, along with male genital cutting is, however, discussed in Hadith:

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

(Note that gender is not specified.)

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
Abu Dawud 41:5251

So note, women should be cut, just not "severely."

Well. At least according to Hadith.

So the claims that "no religious texts prescribe FGM" and that it is "erroneously linked" to religion, and "not particular to any religious faith" are wishful thinking and categorically false.

The question is, however, does it really matter?

Dr. Gillian Einstein is on to something.

This is an excerpt from the article at Global News:

“I think there’s a confusion over who controls the practice. So it’s women who control the practice, not men,” she said. 

“The practice itself does give women a lot of power. And so figuring out other sources of power is a culture change, and I think cultures that have thought about it from that perspective had been a lot more successful in changing the practice.”

Who controls the practice of male genital cutting?

Who would necessarily feel "power" by practicing it?

If males used this model of "power," what would stop females from the same society from adopting the same principle, only on their daughters, as fathers and male members with their sons?

Sadly Adwoa Kwateng-Kluvitse, head of global advocacy at the charity FORWARD, which campaigns against FGM in Africa and Europe, repeats falsehoods to serve her own ends:

“This is very different to male circumcision. With male circumcision there is no intention to attenuate sexual desire, control sexuality or enforce chastity.”

No, these were precisely the goals of John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham, the champions of male genital cutting in America.

Rabbi Maimonides tells us that desensitizing the male organ was precisely the purpose of male genital cutting as this would make its owner focused on more important things, like god and religious scripture.

This bold-faced, self-serving revision of history is appalling.

Arianne Shahvisi, a lecturer in medical ethics at Britain’s University of Sussex, drives home the point that "It comes down to women and girls being able to have a say in what happens to their bodies. One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent."

This is precisely our argument as intactivists.

Aurora and Jacobs, the authors of the paper advocating for the "nick" are actually inadvertently helping intactivists.

How?

They're actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

An excerpt from Raw Story:

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).

The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

“Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.”

It took long enough, but finally people, notably women, in the academic field, are actually coming out and saying it.

This has all happened before.

Not too long ago, the AAP also tried to endorse a "ritual nick."

The arguments were identical; allow a less-severe form of female genital cutting, even less severe than male genital cutting as practiced in the west, in lieu of more severe forms.

The move was short-lived, as a world outcry caused them to renege.

Aurora and Jacobs go a step further and play the name game.

"Call it alteration instead," they say.

Does calling it something else really change what it is?

A forced, permanent violation of another, unwilling person's body?

The forced cutting up of a healthy, non-consenting person's most private, most intimate organs?

Should there be a compromise?

I think readers already know what my position on the subject is.

I'll end this one here and let you ponder for yourselves.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

OREGON: Couple Face Prison for Denying Their Child Medical Care

An Oregon couple refused to look for medical help for their child citing their religious faith in prayer over doctors. Their child died, and now they face prison.

I want readers to note how "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" couldn't save this couple.

This is yet another example of how "freedom of religion" and parental prerogative are not absolute.

Related Link:

Oregon couple who chose prayer over doctors will go to prison for child’s death

EUROPE: Israel MKs Turn Up the Heat

Earlier, I commented on the fact that the European Council finally dared to call a spade a spade and declare medically unnecessary circumcision on healthy, non-consenting children to be a human rights violation.

I also mentioned that, unsurprisingly, Jewish groups and even the State of Israel have vowed to make the European Council rescind.

The Jerusalem Post reports on the progress of Knesset initiatives:

The Knesset has made significant efforts to collect signatures from European parliamentarians on a counter-resolution it seeks to pass in April, reaching 102 signatures as opposed to 77 MPs who voted for the anti-circumcision measure.

The [Reuven] Rivlin-led delegation will meet with leaders of four of the Council of Europe’s five factions to convince them to put the Knesset’s counter-resolution on the PACE agenda for either late January or April. The Presidium, which consists of faction chairpeople, will set the agenda for those two meetings on December 15.

According to Rivlin, the anti-circumcision measure (Was it a definitive, binding measure, or a declaration?) “is not a legitimate decision, and it is a joint goal of Jews, Muslims and anyone who believes in freedom of religion and conscience to cancel it.”

Rivlin, Vaknin and Hoffman plan to meet with party leaders and members of the Council of Europe’s Presidium and present them with the 102 signatures from PACE members, aiming to show that the original measure was passed unfairly when only a small number of MPs were present.

 “We want to make it clear to the Europeans that even if it’s legitimate for them to intervene in diplomatic or regional issues, it is not legitimate for them to be involved in Judaism and freedom of religion.” ~Reuven Rivlin

This "freedom of religion."

How far does it extend? Does it extend to religions whose followers circumcise girls and women? Perhaps it's illegitimate for Europeans to intervene with religions whose followers marry and have sex with little girls. Or does this "freedom of religion" only apply to Judaism when it concerns the forced genital mutilation of specifically male, newborn children?

"Freedom of religion" is a weak argument, and Jewish advocates of male infant genital mutilation know it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lecture Europeans on the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision.

It must certainly be asked, since when do adherents of Judaism, where circumcision is considered divine commandment, care about "research" and "medical benefits?" And since when is it the jurisdiction of governing bodies, such as the Knesset, to make medical value judgements on surgical procedures?

It's not surprising that I'm seeing this happen, and as I've mentioned before regarding other attempts to ban infant genital mutilation, it will not be surprising when the Council of Europe caves to Jewish demands, rescinds their bold move, and offers some sort of "apology" for having dared to call infant circumcision the genital mutilation that it is.

The despair of religious circumcision advocates must be noted. So desperate are religious infant genital mutilation zealots that they go as far as feigning an interest in public health, and as far as citing "research" that may as well be published in tabloids at grocery store check-out lines.

From the Jerusalem Post:

"In addition, last month, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Sydney proving circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure."

Had the authors paid any attention, they would have noticed that the "research" was actually published in August.

Not mentioned here is the fact that the "researchers" are none other than long-time circumcision zealot Brian Morris and his friends, and that the research doesn't actually "prove" anything. Brian Morris didn't conduct any "study," rather, the "research" is nothing more than Brian Morris giving his approval and disapproval for "studies" he himself hand-picked, yielding results he wants.

In short, yet another decidedly myopic opinion piece by a known circumcision enthusiast.

Notice that Knesset leaders are careful not to mention the fact that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

In essence, Knesset MKs, along with Brian Morris, are taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west.

I will not be surprised.

I will not be surprised when and if the resolution put forth by the Council of Europe is replaced with the new dictum from Israel.

But I will also not be discouraged.

I have mentioned it numerous times on this blog already, that legislation is secondary and is not the end-all, be-all of the intactivist cause.

Whether governments ban or legalize the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants means nothing.

Laws follow societal change, not lead it.

Even if the European Council succumbs to Israeli blackmail, it is ever clear that change is inevitable, and circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is finished.

The truth is out, and can be no longer hidden.

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

MK Yoel Razvozov: Conduct Bris Milah at Israeli Embassies

 

In response to the declaration made by the Council of Europe that the circumcision of infants is a human rights violation, Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.

"No one can force us and Diaspora Jewry to follow certain religious values and not others. We should be allowed to observe all Jewish customs... If necessary, we will instruct embassies to hold circumcision ceremonies on their territory, which is Israeli sovereign territory." ~MK Yoel Razvozov

Note, there is no ban on infant circumcision, yet.

European laws allow certain religious values and forbid others all the time. For example, female circumcision for whatever reason is strictly prohibited, and there is no exemption for religious practice. At this point in time, I'm not exactly sure where European laws stand on the marriage of children to other children, or even to adults. Someone please educate me, are bride burnings allowed in any country in Europe?

But I digress; let's stick to forced genital cutting.

What would be the political ramifications would that immigration ministries from countries where female circumcision is seen as an important cultural or religious rite, were to propose female circumcision ceremonies to be conducted at the embassies of their countries?

For example, female genital cutting is performed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and other countries, as a matter of religious and cultural custom, known there as "sunat."

What if the heads of immigration ministries in those countries were to propose having "sunat" ceremonies at their embassies in Europe?

Yes, I'm sure it sounds very poetic to say that "No one can force us to follow certain religious values and not others; we should be allowed to observe all of our customs."

Does it apply in all cases?

Or just with Judaism when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

Related Links:

Jerusalem Post

Israel Hayom

New York Times - A Cutting Tradition

"Religious Freedom" and "Parental Choice" Not Absolute: Yet Another Example

Perhaps the most classic of arguments invoked in favor of male infant circumcision are those of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." In actuality, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" aren't absolute, and I've given examples of this in past blogs.

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people's resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn't be need for child protective services.

Last year, a mother lost custody of her 8yo daughter for injecting Botox into her face for a child beauty pageant. This prompted New Jersey law makers to make it illegal to inject Botox into children, UNLESS it is for actual medical purposes. (Sound familiar?) The year before, a man was given prison time for tattooing his gang's symbol onto his son's abdomen. In Oregon, a law was passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.

And, the classic case that trumps "religious freedom" and "parental choice," in 1996 a ban was instituted, banning female genital cutting of any kind. All female genital cutting, ranging from infibulation, to a "ritual nick" as proposed by the AAP, is illegal in the United States, and punishable by law. No exempt for "religious" cutting of female children's genitals exist.

To add another example where "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail, a Texan man has been jailed for carving a pentagram on the back of his son. It could be said that this man was merely practicing his "freedom of religion," and exercising his "parental choice." But these arguments just aren't going to fly, aren't they.

Interestingly enough, in another recent case, a Canadian man recently lost a high court appeal to have charges of aggravated assault against him thrown out; he tried to circumcise his own child with a knife. His arguments? "He was practicing his religious beliefs."

"This is a case about child abuse... This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally," it was argued.

How the material circumstances of the case bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally is beyond me. Now, it seems, the government is determining what "proper" religious rituals are, and defining what constitutes "child abuse."

Andrew Freedman of the AAP "task force" on circumcision defense circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table. Yet, for the Canadian case, the trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure.

So when is it "child abuse?" When is it not?

Why was it "child abuse" for one man to cut his child's genitals on the kitchen table, on the grounds of "religious beliefs" and "parental choice," but not the other?

How far are "religious beliefs" and "parental choices" protected until the government is allowed to intervene?


Other "parental choices" that don't fly under "religious freedom."

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI




Related Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government."  One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

 

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."