Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Forget the Holocaust

For a moment, forget the Holocaust. A German court has just upheld a decision that male circumcision in infancy is unlawful, a genital mutilation already condemned when applied to female infants whatever the religious or cultural beliefs of the parents. The court has held that such a procedure requires informed consent; if an adult male child of Jewish or Moslem parents decides to adopt the faith, then he is perfectly free to sacrifice his foreskin as affirmation.

This is the absolutely logical application of individual rights established in the late twentieth century; women were no longer to be the chattels of their husbands, to be tupped whether they wanted to or nay, and children were no longer to be the property of their parents, to be starved, beaten or maltreated at will until their majority. If branding an infant with a cigarette is unlawful, why not mutilating its genitals? 

The outcry from the Jewish lobby has predictably been based not on grounds of moral philosophy, but on the emotive trigger of the Holocaust. It is doubly unfortunate that it was a German court rather than a Dutch or Danish one that condemned the practice. Yet this is the remorseless direction in which European courts must rule; it is only a matter of time before the matter comes before our own Supreme Court. It is the only possible outcome of a social shift that has placed the rights of the individual as supreme in a secular world. 

So for a moment, forget the Holocaust.

15 comments:

Tom said...

This is an issue to give a libertarian pause for thought. Can you link to any examples of Jewish people deploying the Holocaust as an argument here please? I plan to write a post about it.

Anonymous said...

The German court is to be commended.
The circumcision of infant boys is barbaric, and dangerous. The infant reported here was readmitted to hospital because of bleeding, a well recognised complication of the operation. Such bleeding may be difficult to control, and allied to some conditions can be lethal, and all for nothing except barbaric custom.
Like hallal meat, it is a barbaric custom associated with tribal history.

Anonymous said...

So, as things stand at the moment, when a German Jewish male is born, his parents are free to flee to free country so that the newborn may be circumcised on the eigth day, as God has commanded. Then perhaps, they will return home, deed done, hoping to get on with their lives in peace and quiet.

If it were not Germany but Britain, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld the German finding as law throughout Europe (as indeed it will when challenged) then what happens next? I would venture to suggest that a circumcised male baby will become prima facie evidence of parental cruelty, that as soon as the child is seen naked by a medic or Social Services he will be removed from his parents forthwith, and the parents will be imprisoned. The State (Social Services) will of course bring the child up as an atheist chav, because that is what the State (Social Services) does. And there you have it. Jews all gone in one generation; clean, no mess, little fuss, QED.

Horrifying. The End is closer than even I had thought.

cuffleyburgers said...

I am not jewish and have not been circumcised however I don't have a dog in this fight as it were, however, it is my understanding that complications arising from circumcision are rare and the health benefits it can be argued are on a par with possible complications.

My own view is that provided it is carried out by competent practitioners, the balance of harm argument would tend towards legalisation as the preferable course (we all know what happens when such things are banned).

To describe it as genital mutilation is unnecessarily imflammatory - it has very little in common with female circumcision which is by all accounts truly a disgusting and barbaric practice.

outsider said...

They should make a documentary film about it: "The triumph of the willy". And no, let's not forget the Holocaust, even for a moment.

Chris Morriss said...

Circumcision is the sexual mutilation of young boys and nothing more. If a couple of the world's most unpleasant religions wish to do this, then delay it until the boy is 18 and can give informed consent.

Dave_G said...

Like circumcision, religion per se should also be left until informed consent can be sought else face charges of 'indoctrination' that follow beliefs like 'Scientology'. I consider this a step 'forward' in life.

Ian Hills said...

If such a law is enacted in the UK, the left will cheer as Jews are prosecuted for circumcising their sons, while the police will ignore the moslems.

outsider said...

Dear Raedwald, as you imply and some of your bigoted commenters confirm, this is part of the battle to stamp out all the great religions in Europe.
The very same "liberals" who want to abolish circumcision (along with Christmas, public prayer et al) are usually also those who champion unrestricted abortion on demand. Death, it seems, is preferable to a religious rite.
This is also a peculiarly Continental European issue, which is why the Holocaust must remain relevant. Even today, in America and Australia today, most adult males are circumcised according to the WHO. In postwar London, it was also the norm, if my predominantly lower middle class school was anything to go by.
On the Continent, however, circumcision was always the peculiar mark of the Jew (and now the Muslim) and a theme of religious/racial rejection, intolerance and persecution.
That is precisely what this judgment is about.

Anonymous said...

Outsider. Get over yourself! Circumcision is about the deliberate infliction of sensless pain and danger on tiny infant boys for some archaic reason adopted by judiasm and islam. Time for both to grow up.

Dave_G said...

...and, Outsider, where are the calls to stamp out the religions? Informed consent may (we can but hope) return religion to the personal level rather than having it enforced on the whole of society.

outsider said...

Dear Anonymous,
"Deliberate infliction of pain" by "judaism and islam". Like most of my generation of Christian boys, I was circumcised for supposed health reasons. I do not think my parents had any wish whatever to inflict pain upon me and I have no recollection of the event, let alone pain.
By contrast, I still have a vivid childhood memory (aged five) of waking up after routine tonsillectomy on a plastic pillow covered with blood. ie it is a trauma that still affects my attitude to hospitals, perhaps sensibly. No-one consulted me and if they had and I knew what would happen I should not have agreed.
As for "danger", the estimated death rate from tonsillectomy is 1:15,000, compared with negligible death rate (say 1:500,000) from circumcision.
"Senseless". Well, perhaps it serves little medical purpose in an age of anti-biotics and and anti-viral drugs but note from the World Health Organisation website that the WHO still aims to maximise male circumcision in African countries with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS as an effective preventative measure.
By the same token, there is no agreement that tonsillectomy before the age of consent has a net benefit in other than extreme cases.
So ask yourself, why are you so het up about circumcision, rather than infant tonsillectomy?
Could it be because circumcision is typically a religious rite practised by "them" while tonsillectomy is a medical procedure practised by "us" under the guidance of "experts"?

Peter S said...

Outsider. If, as you say, most of your generation were circumcised then circumcision is NOT typically a religious rite is it? I assume you went to school in the US as circumcision has never been a common practice in England.

outsider said...

Dear Peter S,
No, I am a Londoner. As a result of Raedwald's post I have done a little research. It seems that sexual hygiene became something of an obsession in the English-speaking countries about 100 years ago when the pathology and transmission of syphilis became known. Widespread circumcision was one response.
The practice seems to have faded rapidly in the UK after 1949, when it stopped being offered on the new National Health Service. Penicillin was shown to cure syphilis in 1943.
There have been similar steep declines in the old Commonwealth and to a lesser extent in the US. So today, the vast majority of circumcisions are in Islamic countries (plus Israel).
The WHO policy in HIV/AIDS hotspots clearly harks back to the old hygiene argument (which I imagine was the origin of the religious rules, as with food laws). So today circumcision is typically, though by no means solely, associated with the traditional religious rites.
To me, it does not seem a big deal either way, certainly not enough to justify a legal confrontation between secular society and Islam/ Judaism. More a pretext for confrontation perhaps.

Peter S said...

Outsider. Thanks for the info and your reasoned response - something of a rarity in parts of the blogosphere these days.