SHOULD CIRCUMCISION
BE BANNED?
[U.K. HUMAN RIGHTS
BLOG]
Yesterday Neil Howard and
Rebecca Steinfeld asked via guardian.co.uk whether it is Time to ban male circumcision?
The article was prompted by
attempts to ban the practice in San Francisco.
Male circumcision is common amongst Muslims
and Jews, but judging from the 286 comments (so far!) to the article, there are
a lot of people who feel that the practice is outdated and should be banned.
I have responded with my own article, arguing
that whilst the debate is by no means settled, a ban at present would amount to
a disproportionate interference with freedom of religion rights.
The debate has been fierce in San Francisco, with even actor
Russell Crowe stepping in.
He called the practice “barbaric and stupid on
Twitter.
See also this Washington Post blog and the
Wikipedia page on circumcision and law.
For an interesting discussion see this article
from 2000 on Circumcision after the Human Rights Act 1998.
One interesting point which emerges from that
article is that...
“The Law Commission indicated that “male circumcision is lawful under English
common law”, but recommended that the lawfulness of male circumcision on
infants and children in accordance with the Jewish and Muslim religions should
be put beyond doubt.”
As I have written, I see it as very unlikely
that we will ban the practice in the UK on the current scientific evidence in
relation to the costs and benefits of the practice.
Unless there was strong evidence of harm –
something which the World Health Organisation amongst others basically rejects
– I cannot see a politician taking on this cause, let alone Parliament voting
on it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(U.S.A. - 2012) Time To Ban Male Circumcision?
If passed, article 50 will ban genital cutting for boys in San Francisco,
with profound religious implications for Jews and Muslims. But isn't it time to
oppose all circumcision?
San Francisco voters will decide later this
year whether, like its female counterpart, male infant circumcision should be
outlawed.
If passed, article 50 — the "Genital
Cutting of Male Minors" — would make it unlawful to circumcise, cut, or
mutilate the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person aged under 18.
The bill includes an exemption for cases of
medical necessity, but not for custom or ritual, which has profound
implications for the many Jews and Muslims who consider it an essential part of
their religious or cultural practice.
Unsurprisingly, the bill has attracted considerable
controversy.
Some regard it as a modern manifestation of
western anti-Semitism, while certain feminist groups consider the idea of
comparing male and female genital cutting to be both offensive and
unsubstantiated.
Neither the World Health Organisation nor the
UN oppose male circumcision, and given that the procedure is so unquestioned
that 33% of American boys still undergo it, one might think that they have a
point.
But is it really so simple?
And are the differences between male and
female circumcision really so straightforward?
According to research, the sexual damage
caused by female and male genital cutting can be extensive.
Female genital cutting, which can involve
removal of the clitoris, may reduce the likelihood of orgasm and cause complications
during childbirth.
Similarly, male circumcision can result in
excruciating pain, nerve destruction, infection, disfigurement and sometimes
death.
Like the clitoris, the foreskin serves a
sexual purpose, and it protects the "head" of the penis from outside
elements.
Both male and female genital cutting can have
profound psychological consequences.
Circumcised women often experience trauma,
stress and anxiety, and can have relationship problems.
Some circumcised men describe feelings of
loss, anger, distrust, and grief, while others have reported problems with
subsequent intimacy, long-term post-traumatic stress disorder, and a sense of
powerlessness.
With female genital cutting, the desire to
control female sexuality remains key: believed to reduce a woman's libido, the
practice is said to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts, thus
aiding the maintenance of premarital virginity and marital fidelity.
Male circumcision has similarly been
associated with managing sexuality.
Maimonedes, the great Jewish sage, believed it
counteracted "excessive lust", while as a secular practice in the US,
it was first promoted as a means of preventing "harmful"
masturbation.
Now, the discourse of cleanliness is crucial –
and one frequently hears that "a cut man is a cleaner man".
In Judaism, male circumcision, carried out
eight days after birth, is essential, according to religious law; male
circumcision is also practised in Islam, though the necessity of female genital
cutting is contested among Muslims.
Clearly, significant similarities exist
between male and female genital cutting, and the question asked by those behind
article 50 is: why the legal difference between boys and girls?
What about the health argument, that male
circumcision is "cleaner" and prevents HIV transmission?
There is a body of research that claims a
correlation between circumcision and reduced transmission rates, and this is
not to be taken lightly, since it represents the strongest case for male
genital cutting – at least in Aids-ravaged regions.
But such research is heavily contested.
A 2007 study by Dowsett and Couch asserted
that insufficient evidence exists to believe that circumcision does reduce
transmission, while Gregorio et al's later analysis cast doubt on correlations
between circumcision and transmission of HIV and STI's more generally.
Wouldn't a mass information campaign represent
better public health policy than widespread pre-emptive circumcision?
If we favour removal of body parts to reduce
risk of disease, why not remove breasts to prevent breast cancer?
Or pull teeth, in the name of cleanliness, to
ward off plaque?
Though health and hygiene are important, less
intrusive and equally successful means clearly exist to ensure them.
What about religious freedom? Certainly, the
ability to freely practise one's religion remains a vital component of any
liberal democracy.
But should this trump an individual's right to
their bodily integrity?
And shouldn't such a principle be extended to all
those who, by virtue of their age, are too young to decide on which body parts
they would or would not like to keep?
Some may point to state overreach here,
suggesting that a ban on child ear-piercing will be next. But it is the
irreversibility of circumcision that invalidates such comparisons.
Instead of dismissing article 50 as either
antisemitic or anti-feminist, therefore, we suggest that it should perhaps be
considered as no more than the consistent application of legal principles to
both sexes.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights outlaws the kind of "harm" that circumcision can cause;
article 14 forbids the discrimination that prevents baby boys from enjoying the
same protection of their genitalia as baby girls.
In the 21st century, it is time to remember
that men, too, can be victims of unjust hegemonic systems tolerated in the name
of tradition, culture or religion.
If we oppose female genital mutilation, has
the time not come for us also to oppose male genital mutilation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
