BRITAIN'S CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE CIRCUMCISION

The issue of un-consenting male genital mutilation (circumcision) is a subject not tackled before on the website but as un-consenting female genital mutilation is a subject that continues to rightly garner much attention the lack of attention on men again is a symptom of how men are given second class status in Britain's society.

Lets get things clear before the site is hoisted on the petard, female genital mutilation is an awful crime that should be stopped - no right thinking person could ever support it (a curiosity of the internal conflict and hypocrisy in the politically correct metropolitan elite is the fact they criticise the practice but not the religious views of those who carry it out.)

But why does unconsenting male genital mutilation not recieve any attention in the UK?

If you look at the recent BBC article and its definition, can someone tell me broadly what the difference is between the females and males - its all about culture and religion. In fact female genital mutilation has been illegal since 1985 (a good overview in the Times) and governments spend a lot of money tackling it and have guidance on how to fight it.

There are some debates here and there on the UK web (Digital spy, Yahoo) and the BBC has a similar page as the one on female circumcision. But the practice has supporters not just in Judaism, Islam but it has consent through a conspiracy of silence, hypocrisy and double standards.

For un-consenting girls and boys, circumcision is illegal for the former but legal for that matter.

The British Medical Association doesn't protest or abhor it in men, the Scottish government  gives guidance on it but does not mention why it should not be practiced and of course there is nothing from the British government. The Minister for Women and Equalities is not interested when equality means equality for men.

So why the hypocrisy. It comes down to the power shift in the British political, cultural, social, state and media system since the late seventies that has meant men have become the second sex. A victory that the feminist fundamentalists have secured. This is because there is no logical, rational or balanced reason in a society that allegedly proclaims itself as being equal that can state that female circumcision is wrong and illegal but male circumcision in fine and legal. When do you hear a MP talking about this in Parliament?

The government and medical establishment in the the UK believe it is OK because of their silence on the issue  - it gives this horrendous practice tacit approval. Silence means assent.

In America, opposition is a lot more active as can be seen in San Francisco (Daily Mail) where there is now a campaign to ban it.  Such a campaign should be started in the UK in addition to that run by  Dr John Warren at NORM-UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - This is sick in the Philippines, can you imagine the outcry if women were abused in this way!

  

Comments

[James Huff]

This is James, long time reader. Just thought I’d throw some fuel on the fire.
You can see a radical feminist in action. Be sure to check out the comments.
http://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/bev-jo-radical-lesbian-writing/

[John Kimble]

Good piece and a much needed article on this blog.

I've studied this issue quite a bit recently, the BBC actually did a rather good documentary on the issue a few years back and in all fairness I think even the Guardian has mentioned the issue in the past.

All that I'd add to the above is the fact that genital mutilation of boys is performed by the NHS in some areas. It even used to be entirely taxpayer funded in places such as Birmingham and somewhat surprisingly it's the actions of a Labour MP who brought the issue to attention.

My investigations so far suggest parents now have to pay to have their babies mutilated against their will, though any such NHS trust offering the service talk about providing the service in an "affordable" manner therefore implying there may well still be some form of taxpayer subsidy involved.

Obviously readers will want to ban this practice entirely but it may well be that the first step is to put a stop to any state funding of such barbarism.

I would appreciate it if any more knowledgable readers know what the costs are in this area and whether the price charged reflects the actual NHS outlay.