Germany's circumcision ban 'worst attack on Jews'

[Armstrong]

Why would anybody ban it? It has religious value in Jews and Muslims and some Christian sects. What purpose it serves to the Germans banning it?

As the argument goes : Cutting off the skin of a minor like that especially when he can't even make that call consciously is an affront to his right to choose or refuse at a later age ! Add to that the fact that it carries the, unneeded, risk of damaging the *opppsi* is enough to ban it especially if it, according to them, doesn't carry any health benefits or if it does the risk of inflict irrevocable damage outweighs any possible benefit accrued.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

Why would anybody ban it? It has religious value in Jews and Muslims and some Christian sects. What purpose it serves to the Germans banning it?

Here is a summary (in English) about the grounds on which the lower court made the ruling, which I just quickly found:

First, the defence of “social adequacy” was did not exist and was therefore not available to justify certain actions which would otherwise be criminal (this appears to be a defence comparable to the rarely defence defence of “necessity” in English law). Rhe social adequacy of the religious practice of circumcision on children could not prevail over the “child’s right to self-determination”.

Secondly, the action of the Defendant could not be justified by the consent of the child, as he did not have the “intellectual maturity to give it”. Section 288 of the German Criminal Code requires that

Whosoever causes bodily harm with the consent of the victim shall be deemed to act lawfully unless the act violates public policy, the consent notwithstanding.

Thirdly, the court justified the decision with reference to Germany’s Basic Law - a constitutional statute similar but not the same as the European Convention on Human Rights. The court carried out a balancing exercise which will be familiar to anyone who has read a UK human rights judgment involving, for example, the right to privacy versus the right to free expression.

On the one hand, the court considered the fundamental rights of the parents under Article 4 (freedom of faith and conscience – very similar to Article 9 ECHR) and Article 6(2) (“The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them” – this has no direct equivalent in the ECHR but probably comes broadly under Article 8).

On the other, there were the rights of the child to “physical integrity” under Article 2(2). There is no direct equivalent in the ECHR, but Article 3 (which prohibits inhuman and degrading punishment) has sometimes been expressed by the courts in terms of the protection of physical integrity.

The court observed that there is an “inherent constitutional limit” to the religious rights of the parents, and that limit was breached by the religious circumcision. The court paid particular regard to the fact that circumcision led to the child’s body being “permanently and irreparably changed” and that it could affect his own religious interests later should he decide, for example, not to be a Muslim. The court also took into account the fact that circumcision would be a “visible sign” of the associated decision of the parents.

German court rules child’s religious circumcision can be a criminal offence – Analysis « UK Human Rights Blog

 

[Armstrong]

nahi bhai, main to hun hi nahi pakistan main, forget lahore

Yaaar to tou country flag to change maaar lei ! I've been interning at an audit firm lately aur wahaan bhi eik Karachiite hai; hum nei tou usss ka beraa gharaaak kar diyaa hai - Ayaaa thaaa tou kehtaaa thaa 'zaraaa zeinei tei kar kei jayeee'...aaab theeet Punjabi boltaaa hai aur Lahore ke khaaanei ka tou aiseee chaskaaa lagyaaa hai keh pehleee hafteeei mein heeeei saraaa stipend khataaam kar deitaa hai ! Tou bhi kabhi chakaar lagaaa na bhai ?

 

[W.11]

Yaaar to tou country flag to change maaar lei ! I've been interning at an audit firm lately aur wahaan bhi eik Karachiite hai; hum nei tou usss ka beraa gharaaak kar diyaa hai - Ayaaa thaaa tou kehtaaa thaa 'zaraaa zeinei tei kar kei jayeee'...aaab theeet Punjabi boltaaa hai aur Lahore ke khaaanei ka tou aiseee chaskaaa lagyaaa hai keh pehleee hafteeei mein heeeei saraaa stipend khataaam kar deitaa hai ! Tou bhi kabhi chakaar lagaaa na bhai ?

acha chal ajao ga

 

[Armstrong]

acha chal ajao ga

Aur phir 'Mechanical Engineering' mein kahaan taaak pohaanchaaa ? My friend is doing it from UET but he changed his major later this year to 'Industrial Engineering' - Yeh kiyaa hotaa hai ? Usss seh pooochaa tou kehtaa hai Mechanical ke hii koi specialization !

 

[whythiskolaveridi]

Here is a summary (in English) about the grounds on which the lower court made the ruling, which I just quickly found:

First, the defence of “social adequacy” was did not exist and was therefore not available to justify certain actions which would otherwise be criminal (this appears to be a defence comparable to the rarely defence defence of “necessity” in English law). Rhe social adequacy of the religious practice of circumcision on children could not prevail over the “child’s right to self-determination”.

Secondly, the action of the Defendant could not be justified by the consent of the child, as he did not have the “intellectual maturity to give it”. Section 288 of the German Criminal Code requires that

Whosoever causes bodily harm with the consent of the victim shall be deemed to act lawfully unless the act violates public policy, the consent notwithstanding.

Thirdly, the court justified the decision with reference to Germany’s Basic Law - a constitutional statute similar but not the same as the European Convention on Human Rights. The court carried out a balancing exercise which will be familiar to anyone who has read a UK human rights judgment involving, for example, the right to privacy versus the right to free expression.

On the one hand, the court considered the fundamental rights of the parents under Article 4 (freedom of faith and conscience – very similar to Article 9 ECHR) and Article 6(2) (“The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them” – this has no direct equivalent in the ECHR but probably comes broadly under Article 8).

On the other, there were the rights of the child to “physical integrity” under Article 2(2). There is no direct equivalent in the ECHR, but Article 3 (which prohibits inhuman and degrading punishment) has sometimes been expressed by the courts in terms of the protection of physical integrity.

The court observed that there is an “inherent constitutional limit” to the religious rights of the parents, and that limit was breached by the religious circumcision. The court paid particular regard to the fact that circumcision led to the child’s body being “permanently and irreparably changed” and that it could affect his own religious interests later should he decide, for example, not to be a Muslim. The court also took into account the fact that circumcision would be a “visible sign” of the associated decision of the parents.

German court rules child’s religious circumcision can be a criminal offence – Analysis « UK Human Rights Blog

The grounds quoted seem reasonable but again the religions are based on faith not fact. I think parents are the guardians of the child till he attains maturity and it should be left to them to decide. Age old practices can not be scrapped like that.

 

[W.11]

Aur phir 'Mechanical Engineering' mein kahaan taaak pohaanchaaa ? My friend is doing it from UET but he changed his major later this year to 'Industrial Engineering' - Yeh kiyaa hotaa hai ? Usss seh pooochaa tou kehtaa hai Mechanical ke hii koi specialization !

industrial thora different hai, industrial ka industrial machines se relation hai i guess where as in mechanical every thing mechanical, its like electrical and electronic engineering i guess

 

[Armstrong]

industrial thora different hai, industrial ka industrial machines se relation hai i guess where as in mechanical every thing mechanical, its like electrical and electronic engineering i guess

Achaaa achaaa...I'll ask him 'Tou paagaaal ho giyaaa hai...Pakistan mein Industriyaaan baand ho rahi hain aur tou Industrial mein kar rahaaa hai' ! Aur sunaaa kahaaan seh kar rahaa hai ?

 

[W.11]

Achaaa achaaa...I'll ask him 'Tou paagaaal ho giyaaa hai...Pakistan mein Industriyaaan baand ho rahi hain aur tou Industrial mein kar rahaaa hai' ! Aur sunaaa kahaaan seh kar rahaa hai ?

seh???,...........

 

[Thorough Pro]

If one person held down a crying baby boy and sliced off part of his pen**, we would send that person to jail. If millions of people do it, we call it ``religious freedom.``

If one person kills his daughter, we call him murderer and hang him, if one billion people kill their daughters we call it worlds largest democracy...... india.

 

[Armstrong]

seh???,...........

Oh sorry Angreezi babu 'Whats your alma mater ?', or if you're still a student 'Where are you studying ?'.

 

[harpoon]

If one person kills his daughter, we call him murderer and hang him, if one billion people kill their daughters we call it worlds largest democracy...... india.

A very poor attempt.

 

[CrazyTycoon]

It's a question of bodily autonomy. A German court ruled that circumcision for non-medical reasons is bodily harm. Obviously an infant or a young child can't give consent to such an intrusion.
The judge stated that circumcision goes against the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity that outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents, giving the fact that circumcision is irreversible and permanent. Moreover, it was argued that circumcision curtailed the freedom of religion and went against a child's right to choose his belief (now and later on).

In principle I agree with the courts ruling, but one has to be pragmatic to a certain extent. A ban on circumcision will surely mean that the practice will go underground, and without a proper and qualified medical supervision things might get more ugly, increasing the risk of complications. And therefore do more harm than good, even with the best intentions.

Good post.

I disagree with circumcision and would prefer if it was left to a mature adolescent on whether they would want to be circumcised or not but thats not practical when many people see it as a religious necessity.

 

[W.11]

Oh sorry Angreezi babu 'Whats your alma mater ?', or if you're still a student 'Where are you studying ?'.

i would send you OM

 

[CrazyTycoon]

im happy for europe, it is slowly turning back into its dark times, intolerance and barbaric uncivilized period

good luck europe

Lol at the over-exaggeration.

Sorry to dissapoint you but Europe is far ahead of most other places in the world including our beloved Pakistan in terms of tolerance, freedom and standard of living and that doesn't look to change anytime soon.

Take out your frustration elsewhere.