First, find out what isn't true…

October 10, 2009

Watching AKUS put it’s shoes on backwards at CifWatch….again


The busy little beaver AKUS at CiFWatch sure knows how to put things through the Ziofier.

The headline on CiF….Circumcision – above the law? In anything other than a religious context, male circumcision would be regarded as a crime.
……is surely warning enough that what follows is a dialogue looking at the situation whereby, under the law, a male sexual organ may be mutilated on religious grounds.

However, the Ziofied headline on CiFWatch blares out FGM Represented on CiF as a ‘Freedom’ and ‘Equal Rights’ Issue .

In order to reach this startling confusion (sic), there’s a number of mandatory steps that must be taken from the Ziofier handbook. 1st ignore the bulk of the article. 2nd concentrate on a couple of sentences. 3rd Mis-construe ’em.

AKUS missed “the most cogent argument against circumcision – the fact that it is fundamentally at odds with English law.”

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

Missed ALL of this “Male children from the Jewish and Muslim faiths have their foreskins removed at a young age under as part of religious practice. This is an irreversible procedure that would otherwise be classed as grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The fact that it is performed with parental consent has been deemed sufficient in allowing this procedure to be performed under English law.

The argument that parental consent suffices to override the law falls flat when compared with the act of tattooing. The Tattooing of Minors Act prohibits the tattooing of any person under 18, regardless of whether a parent consents on their behalf. A tattoo is arguably less permanent than a circumcision. If a person must reach the age of 18 before being deemed able to understand and consent to the permanence of a tattoo, then why should this not apply to a male child being circumcised?”

Missed this “Furthermore, if circumcision of males is allowed on religious grounds, then the ruling in the case of Adesanya must have been erroneous. The court here decided that a Nigerian woman could be prosecuted for cutting her teenaged sons’ faces according to her cultural norms. It seems that freedom to commit GBH only extends to males, and only then of particular faiths or cultural backgrounds.”

Missed all but two sentences “Why then is male circumcision allowed at any age, and female circumcision proscribed even after a woman turns 18? Surely religious freedom cannot be given solely to males.”

Which is of course, a dig at the law, rather than advocating FGM. The law is an ass. If you’re Jewish/Muslim and a male, we can have some non-medical practitioner mutilate your penis, with impunity.

You’ve done it again CiFWatch, congratulations.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. Nobody would suggest surgical intervention as a preventative measure for any other disease and it’s not obvious it’s effective in this case.

    When there is religious belief mixed in as well, we’re entitled to be very suspicious.

    Comment by William Smart — January 2, 2011 @ 10:50 pm


  2. Circumcision, while having a religious significance given to it in Jewish faith is first and for all a hygienic precept and proven medical preventive mesure reducing sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Nowadays in which AIDS devastates vast populations, specially in Africa, world’s experts in health care have recommanded mass male circumcisions (of course not those atrocious female mutilation as in Muslim’s tradition) as one of the means to reduce HIV infection. Actually groups of African doctors come to Israel to learn how to perform circumcisions on babies as well as on adults.

    Comment by Michael Dar — October 13, 2009 @ 8:56 pm


    • “Circumcision, while having a religious significance given to it in Jewish faith is first and for all a hygienic precept and proven medical preventive mesure reducing sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Nowadays in which AIDS devastates vast populations, specially in Africa, world’s experts in health care have recommanded mass male circumcisions (of course not those atrocious female mutilation as in Muslim’s tradition) as one of the means to reduce HIV infection.

      Actually groups of African doctors come to Israel to learn how to perform circumcisions on babies as well as on adults.”

      From memory, one group of three African doctors from Senegal(?) went to Israel and Israeli Doctors once taught ten Doctors in Africa.

      A) Muslims also circumcise for religious purposes.

      B) Neonatal Genital Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection After Jewish Ritual Circumcision

      C) There are 1,330,044,544 people in China. Predominantly males. They do not circumcise. Genital diseases through non circumcision, virtually nil. Rise in AID’s, comparable to circumcised hetro-sexuals.

      D) Personal hygiene prevents (apart from STDs and irretractable foreskin) almost all the other health concerns in un-circumcised males.

      E) In Africa, when males are circumcised they are informed of why. They are also issued with condoms and advised to use them. I.e., they are educated about STDs. It is more likely that this education has played the major role in the lowering of STDs in men in Africa. Oddly, there has been no reduction of AIDs in African women with circumcised heterosexual partners
      Finally
      F) Circumcised heterosexual men STILL GET AIDS!

      American Academy of Pediatrics“Circumcision is a surgical procedure in which the skin covering the end of the penis is removed. Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. How­ever, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social, or cultural reasons.

      Because circumcision is not essential to a child’s health, parents should choose what is best for their child…”

      Comment by talknic — October 14, 2009 @ 9:58 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: