Cologne and the Jews

[Fabricio the Guido]

Cut their willies off and don't marry people who are different from you, this is how you keep a covenant. It's a straight forward issue of consent, if the child cannot consent you cannot inflict harm on a child and even if there is consent, there are circumstances where the State can override that consent if it is in the public interest to do so, for the protection of public health, morals etc.

The obvious, right answer from a human rights perspective is clear. It's all the other position that are muddy and unclear an that's because they spring from the incense and shaman brigade.

[civilservant]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there any reason why it shouldn't be deemed

> assault? Are ritualistic scarrings and female

> circumcision banned, if so why *not* this?

'Female circumcision' is nowhere in the same league as ritualistic scarring or male circumcision. The correct term is Female genital mutilation, or FGM for the queasy. It involves EXcision or completely cutting away external genitalia - not just the removal of a flap of skin as in circumcision.

These are all local cultural practices which seem to have become conflated with religious practice in the days when culture and religion were the same thing. Edited to add - FGM has sometimes been identified as a Muslim practice and exported to other parts of the world as such. It is not - it is a predominantly African cultural practice.

[Ann]

Very well put civilservant. Women are predominantly the perpetrators of FGM, ie the mothers and grandmothers. I know this from experience as a health professional.

A lot of people on this forum claim to know an awful lot about cultures that they possibly know very little.

[Saffron]

Just b/c FGM may not be in the "same league" as male circumcision, does not mean that male circumcision is not also an awful thing. The foreskin is physiologically functional tissue. You wouldn't cut off a baby's finger tip. Why cut off the end of his penis? Whatever its origins, modern medical science should seek to discourage this practice on infants.

[civilservant]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just b/c FGM may not be in the "same league" as

> male circumcision, does not mean that male

> circumcision is not also an awful thing. The

> foreskin is physiologically functional tissue.

> You wouldn't cut off a baby's finger tip. Why cut

> off the end of his penis? Whatever its origins,

> modern medical science should seek to discourage

> this practice on infants.

Agree, but there are degrees of awfulness - and it's not comparing like for like to say that FGM is against the law so male circumcision should be too.

This is a minefield, and while I too think circumcision is a barbaric practice, I'm in the comfortable position of being neither Jewish nor Muslim (nor African for that matter).

But I am getting uncomfortable with the tone of this thread. Are people discussing issues of consent? Or are they complaining about Muslim/Jewish religious practice?

[civilservant]

Cologne is 300 miles away and in another country but Westminster is 5 miles up the road

Mick mac, why don't we talk about interesting decisions made by courts closer to home instead? Such as this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18835915

I'd have thought that this was ideal discussion material for the forum

[Mick Mac]

If you want to discuss something start your own thread. Simples.

[Alan Medic]

What a great name civilservant has. Suits him to a tee.

[taper]

There's a more illuminating discussion on this issue at BobfromBrockley's blog, here:

http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/foreskin-politics-continued.html?m=1

The discussion in the comments with Marko Attila Hoare is particularly good

[Fabricio the Guido]

@Civilservant, thanks for referring to the Terry verdict. I had a good old rant about that on Bookface and then I just let it go. It seems like, or so the judge reasoned, he did say what he said but we cannot be sure of what he meant when he used foul and abusive racist language. No harm, no foul. It was astounding, but the shrugged shoulders which greeted the verdict was just as telling.

[civilservant]

FtG, fair enough, I just wondered why no mention (or not much). I'd have thought it was a red rag to the good old EDF.

Since it's been done, no point starting up another whole thread about it. Simples!

and thanks Alan M, I'm assuming that's a compliment? I'm smiling about your assumption though!