Further to the discussion the other day on the German court decision, Giles Frazer writes an article over at CiF in an attempt to defend the indefensible. It is interesting to see one of the Groan’s own torn to shreds in the comments that follow. Predictably, the response is pretty much universally hostile. There are one or two below the line who try to push the cleanliness argument, but for the most part, Frazer is rightly excoriated.
Hardly surprising, really, with gems like this:
Yet the circumcision of babies cuts against one of the basic assumptions of the liberal mindset. Informed consent lies at the heart of choice and choice lies at the heart of the liberal society. Without informed consent, circumcision is regarded as a form of violence and a violation of the fundamental rights of the child. Which is why I regard the liberal mindset as a diminished form of the moral imagination. There is more to right and wrong than mere choice.
Well, yes, there is more to right and wrong than mere choice, but physical violence against a minor because your religion says so is always wrong. The informed consent is absolutely the key to this. A child is too young to give consent so relies on its parents to make sensible decisions on its behalf – and a sensible decision would be to tell the man with the knife to go forth and multiply. When the child is old enough, then let him make a decision for himself. I am, without question, convinced that the religious leaders who want to do this will be able to use their powers of persuasion…
Indeed, making choice the gold standard in every circumstance is to concede to the moral language of capitalism.
Who is doing that? The court in Germany decided, correctly, that causing a child to bleed – possibly to death as in a London case recently – is assault. What on earth has this to do with capitalism? Nothing. Non sequitur.
In the meantime…
I was circumcised by the mohel when I was eight days old on my grandmother’s kitchen table in St John’s Wood. It wasn’t done for health reasons. It was a statement of identity. Whatever is meant by the slippery identification “being Jewish” – my father is, my mother is not – it had something to do with this. Circumcision marked me out as belonging. Years later, when my wife objected to the circumcision of our new son on the grounds that it was cruel and unnecessary, I reluctantly gave way. Intellectually, I knew that there was little left of “being Jewish” to protect. After all, my wife was not Jewish and I had become a Christian priest. Halachically, it made no sense.
This is a classic case of the abused becoming the abuser. Frazer sees nothing wrong in what happened to him – a surgical procedure carried out in unhygienic conditions on a helpless infant all because of some misplaced idea about belonging.
But, but, but, when his wife quite correctly and reasonably opposed the same violence against their son, Frazer decides that this has an effect on his Jewish identity? This despite his admission that he is only half Jewish and that he has rejected Judaism to become an Anglican priest. I’d have thought those were a pretty big rejection of his Jewish identity, frankly, not the refusal by his wife to let him hack off a part of his son’s penis. Yet despite intellectually recognising all of this:
For all of this, I still find it difficult that my son is not circumcised.
Why? it’s not his penis. Indeed, unless there is a medical need, there is nothing more to be done or even thought about. Why is he concerned about the shape of his son’s penis? Identity is not defined by one’s penis being hacked about by some religious leader with a knife, it’s somewhat deeper than that.
The philosopher Emil Fackenheim, himself a survivor of Sachsenhausen concentration camp, famously added to the 613th commandments of the Hebrew scriptures with a new 614th commandment: thou must not grant Hitler posthumous victories. This new mitzvah insisted that to abandon one’s Jewish identity was to do Hitler’s work for him.
That rasping sound you hear is the bottom of the barrel being scraped. And, while I tend to eschew silly Internet conventions such as Godwin’s law, in this case it is amusing to see it manifesting itself at the very beginning of the discussion. Frazer is not only a buffoon, but one who would, given the opportunity, visit violence on a child were it not for his wife. Good for her. My cousin did the same when her Jewish husband wanted to do the same to her son. Good for her, too.
Two points here.
“It wasn’t done for health reasons. It was a statement of identity”
The last time I was out and about, the only people who were waving their willies about in public to state their “identity” were members of the dirty macintosh brigade. Within the privacy of a relationship, I wouldn’t have thought “identity” was much of an issue.
“Which is why I regard the liberal mindset as a diminished form of the moral imagination. There is more to right and wrong than mere choice.”
Which makes one wonder if he feels the same way about both male and female circumcision. Both are barbaric (although admittedly, female circumcision is even more so, for a number of reasons), and both have their foundations in religion.
If some Hell’s Angel had the name of the local chapter tattooed on their kid, would Giles Fraser be OK with that? I guarantee that the country would go totally apeshit if that happened, the kid would be taken into care.
I have nothing but scorn for the idea that people can get a Sky Fairy Pass. You obviously can’t take a dagger into an Olympic stadium, oh, unless you’re a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger, in which case, that’s just fine. Can you hurt someone with a ceremonial dagger? Well, they’re not particularly sharp, but they’re as dangerous as a table knife which you can’t take in for buttering sandwiches.
My identity is English, geek, middle class, midlands. There’s a bit of judeo-christian philosophy in there too, But if I tried to get an exception because I’m a geek or because I’m from the midlands, people would laugh their asses off.
Difficult this one: does the German court decision – and LR’s objection to circumcision – extend to any assault on children by their parents? Occasionally, when they were young, I gave my children a clip on the backside for doing something stupid or being impolite, having ignored being told off for doing the same thing. I’m sure there was momentary pain but it didn’t seem to do them any harm and I believe it actually did some good. Circumcision is indeed atavistic but, as long as it’s done painlessly (which is possible although I understand orthodox Jews only give the circumcisee a drop of wine) and expertly, I can’t see any harm being done.
Of course, so-called female circumcision is complete brutality and does permanent harm – both psychologically and physically but that’s not the subject of this thread.
Circumcision is an irreversible and unnecessary surgical procedure. That’s the difference.
As far as female circumcision is concerned, the difference is one of degree, not principle.
For me there is nothing remotely difficult about it. Carrying out this procedure without the express consent of the person concerned is assault and should be prosecuted as such. It can and does cause pain and long lasting harm (erectile dysfunction and keratinisation for example). In the case that kicked this off, the child had to be taken into hospital due to haemorrhaging. In London, a child died as a consequence – both were entirely avoidable.
“As far as female circumcision is concerned, the difference is one of degree, not principle”
It is far more than just a difference of degree: female circumcision removes an organ – the clitoris – which is necessary for women to enjoy sex. Male circumcision removes a fold of skin. AFAIAA – and I’m circumcised but not Jewish or Moslem – it does not reduce sexual pleasure or capability. True it’s an unnecessary procedure (although in 1943 my parents and my doctor would not have agreed with that statement) but, again as I understand it, it is not irreversible although the reversal procedure – absent plastic surgery – is bothersome and . .er . . lengthy.
Your point about the lack of necessity and the occasional – and highly distressing and painful effects of a – circircumcision that goes wrong I accept. But whatever you and I might think, circumcision is necessary to Jews and Moslems who, rightly or wrongly, will interpret the banning of circumcision as an attack on their religion, not a public safety issue, and will react accordingly. This is not to give them a free pass in the matter of assaulting a child. Nevertheless, to me – but not to you – circumcision is a case where principle yields to pragmatism.
And that is why it is a matter of degree not principle. Both are unnecessary. The principle is identical.
That said, the decision does not mean a ban on circumcision, merely that the rights of the infant to remain intact outweigh the rights of the parents to impose their belief on that infant’s body. The epitome of a liberal ruling, frankly.
If it is so important, it can wait until the man is old enough to make the decision for himself. After all, what someone does to their own body is their business.
Back to your original post Umbongo, I really don’t see what permanent genital mutilation for religeous reasons has to do with giving a naughty child a thick ear.
The former is an act of barbarity carried out for dubious “reason” that lasts for life, while the latter is a simple reminder that there are (and should be) unpleasant consequences for bad behavior that lasts for a few seconds.
I do realize though that there are plenty of anti-smacking nutters out there who wil try to make such a direct connection to get those in power to fall for their narrow minded bigotry against responsible adults.
One thing that always interests me whenever this discussion arises is the attempt to rationalise the practice.
Basic liberty principles should kick in as far as I am concerned – that is; your liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose. In this case, the mohel’s or mullah’s liberty to wield his scalpel ends at the infant’s penis.
Let him grow old enough to make his own decision.
Maaarrghk! The point I was trying to make (or clarify) was that there is a spectrum of child assault – from legal chastisement to Baby P-type murder – on which circumcision lies. I was seeking to identify where on that spectrum LR would have a particular practice or type of behaviour banned.
LR: I am not attempting to rationalise the practice which the last sentence of my 19:27 response makes clear. I’m saying that circumcision is an irrational practice to which otherwise civilised people are attached. Furthermore, it is one that, in the vast majority of cases, appears to do no harm. Accordingly I, for one, would not ban circumcision and, by not banning it, would avoid the near-certainty of religious war – or at least unrest – in the UK.
Just to throw another piece of wood on the fire of your indignation in a separate (if related) issue, neither – for similar reasons – would I ban the practice of ritual slaughter by Jews (ie not stunning animals before killing them).
I’m circumcised but not Jewish or Moslem – it does not reduce sexual pleasure or capability
How would you know?
Those who have been circumcised as adults tend to suggest that it does.
If the Jewish identity is tied so strongly to this act of circumcision, as Giles seems to be saying, then you have to wonder, really, if it’s worth preserving. Should it be more than that?
Since “being Jewish” by birth requires you to have a Jewish MOTHER (it being matrilinear), I fail to see the issue since he was never actually Jewish in the first place.
not like you to go over the top… “a surgical procedure carried out in unhygienic conditions”… we are not talking open heart surgery here, or amputation, just a snip…
….. a well scrubbed table with a clean cloth is as clean and as hygenic as many hospitals.
I survived such a ‘procedure’ in 1945 and, to quote a comment from CiF,,,,”I got circumcised because I couldn’t pee properly. Never did me any harm and none of the ladies I’ve been with have asked for their money back”.
No mention in the article as to how the Germans will get the 4 million Muslims there to do as they are told.
Hardly over the top; a simple statement of fact. Creating an open wound in a non-sterile environment horrifies me. Sure, there may be occasions when it is necessary to save a life. Not so in this case and the “it didn’t do me any harm” is not a justification – and the poster at CiF was talking about a medical necessity. Religious cutting is not.
I could, of course have used words such as barbaric and primitive. They would equally apply.
The German court’s verdict was right, proper and courageous.
the muslim tradition will continue unabated…and it will be studiously ignored by lawmakers. It will create another division where one group is treated completely different to others.
Another elephant in the room to be ignored while the easy target, Jews, are forced to obey.
I don’t doubt it. However, the fightback has to start somewhere. And accepting that it will continue does not alter the principle that it is morally repugnant and that we should be open in saying so.
There is a word that deals with men that are so interested, in the organs of their children, and they get treated rather….differently in prisons, so I hear.
To be fair, I wasn’t specifically having a go at you – it was more of a general comment. Reading some of the justifications offered over at CiF provides plenty of examples.
For me this is a moral absolute – it is unnecessary, it causes pain and leaves the child with a permanent disfigurement. The line, therefore is easily drawn.
I disapprove of kosher and halal slaughter, too, so I am being consistent.
You are not being inconsistent – I am. I agree, there is no way of rationalising the practice. However, given the context in which your moral absolute would be applied, I believe that my inconsistency is reasonable whereas your consistency is, I believe, unreasonable.
I’m not really advocating anything at this stage. Every reform has to start with someone making a stand. The Court in Germany has made such a stand. reform will be a long process from here and I certainly don’t expect an overnight ban on circumcision.
I would also make an aside here that those in favour of continuing the practice do not have their case helped by having Frazer as an advocate, his argument is all over the place 😉
Well, at least we agree that Fraser is, generally speaking, an idiot: his support for Occupy attests to that and I find it difficult to disagree with this essay in Standpoint.
The peculiar thing about the chatterati’s reception to this judgement is that it is portrayed purely in terms of its impact on Germany’s Jewish population. So is therefore “anti-semitic”. Yet it will also affect Germany’s 4 million Muslims but no one mentions them. This is the “Harry’s Place” mode of analysis, where any event is interpretated by how it will affect either Israel or Jews.
The astonishing thing to me is that the law still permits parents to mutilate the genitals of their children. I would hope that the courts in the UK would follow suite. Other than for medical necessity, I can see no justification for circumcising a child until it is an adult and can make an informed choice. It is such a basic point I am gobsmacked that anyone has to be make the case. The comparison with Hells Angels being permitted to tatoo their infants mentioned above is an excellent one and throws into sharp relief the absurdity and wrongness of permitting this practice upon infants.