Oh WHAT?

[floo]

There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces of your baby's genitals.

I agree.

[Shaker]

There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces of your baby's genitals.

Only of degree, not of kind.

It was reported a few weeks ago that Ofsted inspectors will ask girls in primary schools why they are wearing the hijab, given that the girls referred to here are four and five years old and given that the tradition typically is that girls start to wear the thing once they reach puberty (quite appalling enough in itself, but that's another story). Therefore if a four year old girl is wearing a hijab, I'd put my shirt, the house and the farm on the likelihood that it wasn't a free choice on the part of the wearer. What religion is a four year old expressing, exactly?

We already know from news in the none too distant past that there's a serious issue in some schools with infiltration by fundamentalist groups. That needs to be cut out like the cancer it is.

[Rhiannon]

But it’s a separate issue. Circumcision happens for reasons other than religious ones - fashion, a belief it is ‘cleaner’ - ban it on medical grounds. Then debate the religious stuff.

[Shaker]

But it’s a separate issue. Circumcision happens for reasons other than religious ones - fashion, a belief it is ‘cleaner’ - ban it on medical grounds. Then debate the religious stuff.

That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.

[Rhiannon]

That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.

An ex of mine had been circumcised for ‘cleanliness’ reasons. Best to take a belt and braces approach and ban it on medical grounds which covers all bases, surely?

[Shaker]

An ex of mine had been circumcised for ‘cleanliness’ reasons.

In this country/society that's vanishingly rare.

Best to take a belt and braces approach and ban it on medical grounds which covers all bases, surely?

Whatever gets the job done. You'll still get the chorus of victimhood from the usual suspects regardless, of course.

[Rhiannon]

In this country/society that's vanishingly rare.Whatever gets the job done. You'll still get the chorus of victimhood from the usual suspects regardless, of course.

At the moment. It only takes a change in fashion; if the NCT started promoting circumcision you’d see a big jump. It only takes a self-proclaimed ‘natural parenting guru’ and some clever marketing and private clinics will be more than happy to chop bits off baby boys.

Yeah, some will complain, especially the religious. But ban it on medical grounds and they really don’t have a case, do they?

[Shaker]

Yeah, some will complain, especially the religious. But ban it on medical grounds and they really don’t have a case, do they?

In actuality, of course not. They will think they do however because as we all know, to these types "God says ..." trumps everything and anything.

[Harrowby Hall]

That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.

No, really. If you were born in the 1940s (like me) or 1950s there was a very good chance that you would be circumcised. It was a fashion, imported from the USA which was fuelled by the common use of English.  At secondary school changing for PE or swimming revealed that most perhaps 70% of boys were, like me, devoid of prepuce. It was a "favour" performed by midwives during their immediate post-natal home visits.

I suspect that the arrival of Mr Hitler, on the continent, with his warm, inclusive, attitudes towards Jewry, partially prevented  its universal uptake, but also the fact that pernicious propaganda probably did not stand much chance of being translated from English.

[Enki]

That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.

If you are talking about today I think you would probably be right.  However, Like Harrowby, I was born in the 1940s, and it was a prevalent practice in the UK. The reason I was circumcised was that it was thought, at that time, that it was more beneficial to health.

[Rhiannon]

And without it being banned in law we can’t prevent such a ‘fashion’ coming back.