Sorry everyone - been away again
Following the decision (and here) this week by a German court that infant male circumcision (male genital mutilation) is illegal (unless for medical reasons) and those carrying out the procedure can be charged with assault/GBH means another step has been taken in the issue being treated in the same was female genital mutilation.
The court ruling is clear why: The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child
There has long been a conspiracy of silence (and here) on this issue in the UK by the 'establishment' albeit one where the BBC and Guardian have spent time on and children are losing their life because of it.
And why has there been a conspiracy of silence? It is clear this is due to political correctness within the political, media (not all) and medical classes in trying not to offend people of the Jewish and Muslim faith. Offending Christians (and I am not defending Christianity) is OK.
Political Correctness is a pseudo-religion itself. Issues like this always leave those who practice it in ideological torture when a group the politically correct industry choose to support has practices that undermine political correctness itself and offend another victim group. Nick Cohen's What's Left? book articulates this clearly.
On this issue the 'establishment' generally dare not want to cover the story or pass any comment. The BBC and the Guardian have covered it because of their atheist position but do not really have an 'opinion'.
Religion
Getting to the point, the condemnation poured on the Cologne court's correct (morally and legally correct) decision by the two religions shows why the conspiracy of silence has existed. It is an attempt to scare people into silence and to claim special treatment and exemptions from equality, humanity and human rights because of their tradition and opinion (religion).
The Guardian reported as did the Telegraph that Muslim and Jewish leaders called it "insensitive and discriminatory" because in their opinion circumcising a boy without his consent is not insensitive or discriminatory. The News Statesmen reported that Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies in the UK described it as "intolerant, ill-informed and deeply troubling."
Brendan O'Neill in the Daily Telegraph suggests it an 'anti-semitic' decision.
Silence from equality campaigners
Why is there no comment or campaign by the UK government and Minister for Equalities, Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others. Always quick off the mark on the female mutilation issue, silence on the male issue.
Are they following the lead set by Katrin Altpeter:
Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.
As ever, women's rights groups are not speaking up for women (see discussion on Mumsnet).
Again, it shows that Women's groups and campaigners who condemn the decision do not believe in equality for men and women, just special treatment for women and special pleading. It helps their funding of course.
A complicit government
The government should just make male genital mutilation illegal as they have done female genital mutilation. What is the difference?
And going back to the politically correct point, female genital mutilation is a religious matter. The government is choosing what religions it supports (those that circumcise) and what ones it doesn't (or effectively what religions it can afford to upset and what ones it can't.
Where next?
I think there are a number of planets that are coming together that will lead to a ban at some point in the next two years.
Firstly, there are sensible mainstream groups in the UK such as NORM-UK, Ending Unneccessary male Cicrcumcision in the UK and other wider groups such as the British Humanist Association and the Men's Helath Forum who want a ban. This means the issue will be kept on the 'agenda'.
Secondly, the hysterical response from the two religions will ensure it remains on the agenda especially as it shows how out of touch they are (you only have to read the comments sections in the debates). They will now have to campaign against the courts decision, therefore keeping it in the spotlight and shining a spotlight onto how naked they are.
Thirdly, some doctors and hospitals will start to look themselves and also fear the law. One hospital in Germany has already stopped carrying out the procedure (There is a Circumcisions Direct company - as if mutilation is the equivalent of selling car insurance!)
Lastly, the case in Oldham will actually mean the judge will now be crossing the line into politics as the judgement (and the reason for the judgement) will have implications (one way or other) on male cicumsicion in the UK.
I think that if the campaigns continue and the spotlight is shone - there will be a tipping point and I think the German court has helped move this further - the Oldham case may be the one that does it in the UK.
Once again though, it is the courts that place male equality in its rightful place - an equalities, moral and human rights issue. It remains shameful that male equality has to rely on the courts rather than politicians and the 'establishment' to make decisions for male equality.
Just like the issue on equalising state pension age, the British Airways ban on allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children and now this. All could have been be stopped at a stroke of a legislators pen, instead men have to go to court for equality.
Posted by Skimmington
Recent Comments