A German court has outlawed circumcision done for religious reasons.
Circumcising young boys on religious grounds causes grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision that the Jewish community said trampled on parents’ religious rights.
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, a judgment that is expected to set a legal precedent.
And a hugely important one. Think forced marriage, think child marriage, think FGM, think of denying children medical care. Maybe bodily integrity will be defined more narrowly, so that it wouldn’t apply to child marriage – but child marriage ruins girls’ bodies and lives (think fistula), so maybe it will apply.
The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents’ wishes.
A few days after the operation, his parents took him to hospital as he was bleeding heavily. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm.
Ouch.
The decision caused outrage in Germany’s Jewish community.
The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was “an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination.”
The judgment was an “outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries,” added Graumann.
“This religious right is respected in every country in the world.”
Yes, and it shouldn’t be. There shouldn’t be a “religious right” to mutilate your children.
Mind you, one could wish it hadn’t been a German court…
At long last a civilised country has decided to do the right thing and stand against this barbaric practice. I hope many others follow suit. I read somewhere Norway is making noises in that direction. Hopefully it will spread through Western Europe quite quickly now that one country has been brave enough to tackle this issue.
Brave to the German courts! Another small step in taking away that cover religions hide behind to commit acts that would be illegal in every other context. And, no, a mohel shouldn’t be allowed to place an infant’s mutilated genitalia in his mouth. (Let’s hope, with this ruling and proper enforcement, such a thing as a mohel becomes extinct.)
woo hoo! about friggin time!
A friend came to dinner after having their son circumsized and I had not thought about it for so long that I had just about forgotten. I almost cried. Babies don’t even have bladder control yet so they pee all over their open wound. It must be hard enough to be a baby with diaper rash and teething and gas and colic and all the other pains.
Or one could point out that they made the right decision in the face of the knowledge that they would be accused of anti-semitism which makes their decision that much more laudable.
This German precedent will make it that much easier to implement this decision in other jurisdictions that don’t labour under the baggage (or at least to the same degree) of Germany’s sordid history of anti-semitism.
Yes, outraged parents, self-determination. As in, the child will decide for himself someday whether he wants to be a part of your religious community. Until then, put down the knife and back away from the infant!
skeptifem:
None of the males in my family have been circumcised, so it came as an unpleasant shock the first time I babysat a little boy who had been circumcised. It was several weeks old and yet still clearly a wound, exposing parts that shouldn’t be exposed on a little boy that young. In your situation, I would have almost cried, too.
If a man has been circumcised and is happy with it, I don’t fault him. It’s his body, after all. Taking away choice from a baby and subjecting him to that sort of pain and a fundamental alteration of such an intimate body part makes me cringe, though.
@ 4, yes, that too…
And if it does spread quickly, it won’t matter that it was Germany.
(Uh oh. I said “Germany.” Orac will be here any minute, with flames shooting out of his eyes.)
Quite honestly, I’m opposed to the idea that parents have any fundamental rights whatsoever when it comes to children. Children have fundamental rights, including the right to bodily autonomy, the right to education, the right to sufficient food and parental care, etc. The only right that parents have is to be the default caretakers so long as they refrain from violating any of the child’s rights.
One could wish it wasn’t Germany that is inflicting collective punishment on my country Greece either. Such is life.
Dali – I tend to agree – but then I think about things like wanting to influence children, raise them to be good people – and it all becomes complicated. Some people think religion is necessary to raise them to be good people. It gets sooo complicated…
@Dalillama
Indeed, this decision opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities.
If a court is going to rule that the “bodily integrity [of the child] outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents” then it’s not such a big step to ruling that the integrity of a child in general out rules the rights of parents and that denying a child a proper education by substituting religious indoctrination is a violation of that integrity.
Jews & Muslims will claim it is an essential part of their religion but you’d soon find out how ‘essential’ it was if they had to choose to be circumcised as adults.
I agree it’s rather unfortunate that this is coming from Germany, but what can one do? This is encouraging to see, although several people are rightly wondering what good it will do given it contains a non-enforcement clause.
Nah, the kid will still be raised Jewish or Muslim, he just won’t be circumcised.
As I’ve written here, the arguments offered by outraged members of Germany’s Jewish community in defense of their tradition are rather pathetic:
But “self-determination” needs to be determined by each individual for himself. A community doesn’t have the right to force an unnecessary medical procedure on anyone, least of all a child who hasn’t had the chance to determine whether he wants to be part of that community or not.
Just like slavery used to be.
@11/steve oberski
Actually, as we have mandatory school attendance in Germany, it has been ruled exactly that way. Fundamentalists of all stripes of course want to homeschool their children or send them to an unsupervised zealot skool. This right is denied to them here. A few families have emigrated to the US because of this. One father tried to abduct his kids to a fundie Christian community in Egypt not so long ago.
I have to disagree. The people who believe that are demonstrably wrong, and therefore their beliefs should have no weight under law. The child’s right to a fact-based education trumps the parent’s right to indoctrinate them.
I agree Dalillama. Since becoming a parent myself and spending too much time in the online parenting communities, I couldn’t really articulate WHY I was so uncomfortable with the oft quoted ‘it is a parenting style/choice/ right’ response to so many issues. I think either you can make the case for what you are doing as a parent, or you can’t. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be more than one successful way of managing an issue as a parent, but each needs to be defended.
In all fairness to him, from the quote you posted Ophelia, the head of the committee didn’t pull out the ‘ZOMG Nazis!’ card (although I’ll confess to being cynical enough to suspect someone will sooner or later if they haven’t already).
And Hazelwood what sort of responses do people make if their choice is questioned, if you don’t mind my asking?
Civilized, thoughtful and kind people: 1
Hysterical imbeciles with imaginary friends: 0
Way to go, Deutschland!
There is a danger that orthodox Rabbis will start biting the kid’s peckers off again, now that a doctor can’t do it.
Dali, well I agree with you as a matter of ethics – I think parents shouldn’t foist myths on their children as if they were authentic knowledge. But I don’t think the state can do anything about that directly. (It can do it indirectly by mandating education and keeping the education secular.)
Lets hope it goes to the European court of Humann Rights, surely they cant trump the rights of babies with the rights of thier superstitious parents. I also wonder if it will lead to lawsuits in the future
Poor kid. FOUR years old? That seems so much crueler than doing it to a baby, though I’m not sure that’s really valid. Babies don’t feel less pain. But on the other hand 4-year-olds have much more capacity for independent thought, which might make violating their autonomy worse.
In any case, this is hugely important. If male circumcision is a violation of a child’s legal right to bodily integrity, then so many of the more-horrific things done to children (usually female) must also be.
FINALLY! I’m so sick of the double standard so often encountered with respect to cutting on infant/young boys’ genitals versus cutting on infant/young girls’ genitals (yes, yes, I know: the amount of tissues excised from girls is frequently greater, and FGM also functions as part of a sexist system of oppression that disadvantages women far more than men; that doesn’t change the fact that it’s simply not okay to cut little kids’ bodies for any reason other than medical necessity). Neither is okay. Same goes for gender assignment surgeries performed on infants and young children with various intersex conditions: the child in question can make that call when ze’s older. Bodily interventions for the sole purpose of making parents more comfortable or their lives easier are categorically unacceptable.
@8: Ditto; I actually got into a heated discussion with my after-work drinking group last week over my assertion that children should have the same legal rights and protections as adults. I was rather surprised by the level of resistance to the idea that I encountered, since this is an extremely liberal group, but the indoctrination from certain social norms runs deep, even in people who have rejected bigotry on the basis of race, class, sexuality, gender, sex, sex-gender congruence, illness or disability, etc. It was shocking to hear the exact same apologetic arguments used for any class-based discrimination coming from people who would never use them (and, in fact, point out the flaws in logic) to justify racist or sexist policy. The most bizarre moment was hearing someone try to claim that literal paternalism wasn’t paternalism.
Reading some political blogs, apparently there will be an exodus of Jews from Europe and we’re all (looks around, sees Orac is busy, risks it) Nazis. Also, you chop off the umbilical cord so what’s the difference? And circumcision prevents AIDS better than not circumcising*, so it’s scientifically a good thing.
I wish I was making this up.
Let adults modify their bodies as they choose. Let babies reach adulthood with the freedom to make that choice.
“Communities” don’t have self-determination. Individuals do. See also: insulting religion.
* (Although not as well as barrier protection, which is easily available in the EU, and which mitigates other risks as well.)
Why all the hand-wringing that a German court made this decision? Surely there’s not some sort of religious punishing the sins of the fathers unto the seventh generation going on.
Dirigible, the difference is that the umbilical cord and the placenta are, one way or another, discarded as part of the normal birthing and newborn process. The foreskin is not.
Circumcision to prevents AIDS is like pulling teeth out to prevent cavities and infections from bite wounds. I have yet to see numbers that show any possible reduction in the transmission of AIDS fifteen or more years from now that justify the immediate risks to the boys involved.
@ John Horstman: it’s not just the amount of tissues excised that’s greater. It’s also that the clitoris, the main center of sexual pleasure, is removed. So an actual ability and source of pleasure is lost. FGM is more like castration than circumcision, the clitoris being roughly homologous to the penis.
I agree that circumcision shouldn’t be done in the modern world though.
Timberwoof – More a “there are still people alive…”. But yes and yes wrt the cord and AIDS, my mentioning them was in exasperation not support. 🙂
Is this going to cover (child) ear piercing? Other piercing? Should it?
That’s (IMO) a much more trivial violation of ‘bodily integrity,’ but I kinda hope the German courts do include it. They are fighting against a historical reputation for anti-Semitism; if they were to follow this ruling with another giving an exception for a procedure not associated with Judaism, I can see how that might undermine the initial rulings’ credibility.
The following article is guaranteed to cause many of the commentors and our host considerable heartburn.
http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=275068
Why would that give me heartburn? That’s medical circumcision.
Performed on grown-ups who’ve consented to the procedure.
@avh1. People will mostly describe it as a matter of ‘parenting choice’ and suggest we just have different approaches to parenting.
It is tricky because, for women especially, there as an unbelievable amount of pressure to conform to idealised notions of motherhood and an equally unfathomable amount of information you are supposed to digest in the quest for that ‘best parenting choice’. Cry it out or not cry it out, breast or formula, pain relief in labour or natural birth, daycare or mum at home, private or public school, freedom or safety. It is absolutely an understandable to want to say ‘stop judging me and asking me to defend every single bloody decision I make for my child’.
I can’t tell if the ruling was for body integrity or against circumcision–the article seems to make both claims. If it’s for body integrity it seems that this would also cover things like removal of polydactyl fingers or toes, even when the extra digits are non-functional. Or human tails (usually just blobs of skin and fat). Or maybe even various versions of chimeras, so long as the extra body parts don’t interfere with the overall health of the child. Prophylactic removal of the tonsils or appendix? Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see just how it plays out.
@31
Surely it’s not quite the same thing? The vast majority of piercings (I can’t say all since I don’t know the subject in detail) are voluntary (usually the child is the one who persuades the parent to let them get a piercing or the person getting the piercing is already an adult). Also I’ve never heard of newborn babies getting piercings, but I have heard of them being circumcised.
@36
On the one hand that seems incredibly gnomic – since there isn’t one single way to do it of course it is a choice. But your idea that decisions about parenting should be defended and defensible doesn’t seem like it would be very popular – people tend to think that parents right to choose *should* trump everything else (it’s most clearly expressed by some anti-vaccination parents, and of course the joke ‘think of the children!’ didn’t come out of nowhere).
@davidmc
Mmh, I’m not sure about that. The circumcision in Europe being 99% a Jewish/Muslim pratice, the decision to ban it, while perfectly justified and GOOD, tend to be cheered by far-right elements. The Court might go toward a decision that wouldn’t strenghten anti-immigrant positions.
Moreover, from what I saw (I may have missed some things) the Court tend to go the “freedom of religion” route more often than not.
France has been bash (and not only on the burqa decision) for some decisions that were deem “too secular” and encroaching on religious freedom.
#37. Most of the girls in my daughter’s preschool had their ears pierced; I think it’s quite common to have it done shortly after birth. We were asked about it and declined. Of course, ear piercings aren’t necessarily permanent.
It sounds as if the child’s agreement to the procedure isn’t a factor–that the decision has to be made by the person it is performed upon when that person is an adult. Maybe that’s ok for some cosmetic surgeries (like boob jobs), but for others (strawberry birthmarks, for instance) surely it’s better to be able to mitigate them before the child goes to school?
@37
Thank you for letting me know that – I had no idea a doctor would consider doing that, or that parents would want them to. That would seem to fall under the same category as the OP then.
In some cultures, all babies (boys and girls) get their ears pierced.
I can’t get worked up about that, to be honest. Very minor, non-permanent, cosmetic alterations that neither cause severe pain nor remove any ability or sensations, in my view, should be allowed.
If it’s absolutely necessary to disallow them in the process of disallowing circumcision or FGM, I’d be okay with that. But I doubt it is, and I suspect the law isn’t going to go there.
Hooray for this court. I hope this decision spreads further and protects more children from stupid decisions of their religious parents.
Speaking of which, the article passes over another important children’s right being abused:
> a doctor in Cologne who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents’ wishes.
A four-year-old boy, regardless of his parents’ wishes, is not a Muslim.
A child this young is not and has never been a Muslim. He is a child of Muslim parents.
No four-year-old has chosen any religion. We must call attention to religious labelling of children too young to have chosen any religious viewpoint.
Yeah, with whole “one could wish it hadn’t been a German court”…It is very true that anytime Germany rules on something that particularly Americans (and sometimes other countries) don’t like or agree with, someone pulls out the the ‘ol Nazi card.
But I do agree with it, you chump. (I saw your email address. Very funny.)