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.
First, find out what isn't true... 