…You see a story where the courts get it right.
A devout Muslim has failed to persuade a high court judge to rule that his sons should be circumcised.
The man, who was born in Algeria but lives in England, argued that circumcision would be in accordance with his “Muslim practice and religious beliefs” – and in the youngsters’ best interests. But the boys’ mother, who grew up in Devon and is separated from their father, disagreed.
Mrs Justice Roberts refused to make a circumcision order after analysing arguments made at a family court hearing in Exeter, Devon. She said it was better to defer a decision until the boys, aged six and four, reached a stage where they could make “individual choices”.
And that’s it in a nutshell. Circumcision carried out for cultural or religious purposes is mutilation of another person’s body. Conducted without their consent, it is assault. Sure, parents may have to make the decision on their child’s behalf because of medical reasons. Fair enough. To impose their religious or cultural beliefs on the body of their son before he is old enough to make the decision for himself is repugnant. It is no less repugnant than FGM. And to anyone who criticises me for drawing the comparison, I make no apology – the degree may differ, but the principle is the same – the cutting off of part of an infant’s body before they are old enough to decide for themselves for no other reason than a barbaric medieval belief in an imaginary supernatural being. It is a vile practice and the sooner it is stamped out, the better. We are the owners of our bodies, not parents, not the church, not the state and not religion.
If someone chopped off your foreskin in the street there would be a desperate struggle followed by a prosecution for grievous bodily harm. It’s far worse when the victim is too tiny to call the police or put up a fight. It should, of course, be allowed for adults but I would hazard a guess that it’s popularity would decline in this case as no-one in their right mind would have someone hack at the old John Thomas.
Well, I was circumcised back in ’39. It was the fashion at the time on, perhaps dubious, medical grounds. Rather like ‘5 a day.’ There were health fads then, just as now. Been none the worse for it.
That’s not the point, though, is it?
Usually, prurient Victorian obsessions with stopping boys masturbating.
1. As I understand it, circumcision is not mandatory for Muslims.
2. If one considers oneself to be made in the image of one’s God, isn’t it sacrilegious to lop bits off with no good reason?
John Tee; to your number 2 +1000 likes
If this country took male genital mutilation seriously then it would be prohibited for all children under the age of 18, with the only exceptions being legitimate medical procedures. Presently the way the MSM is playing this court decision is that it is “anti-semitic”.
This, of course, is the problem. As soon as you object to enforced infant circumcision, you are labelled anti-semetic. I have no problem with Jews. I have a huge problem with enforced infant circumcision. My objections are based around bodily autonomy, not an objection to Judaism or Islam – even though I do have issues with the latter.