Male Genital Mutilation

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How can you say 'easier for all involved' - how can it be easier for the infant when you don't know whether they want it to happen. If the infant doesn't want it to happen (or rather doesn't want it when they are old enough to consent) it is of course easier not to have the operation when they are an infant as they will never have the operation.

What you actually mean is that it is easier to ensure that it happens regardless of the subsequent view of the infant.

You are beginning to come over all Rose like - seemingly completely ignore the most important person in the whole situation - the baby.

No, what I actually mean is that having spoken to the few people I know who had it done later, they would have preferred to have had it done when they were a baby. The only reason they didn't is because the mother couldn't bear the idea of dealing with it but once the kids were old enough to understand the religious and cultural beliefs about circumcision, they went ahead with it but when I spoke to them as adults one said it had hurt and took longer to heal than if it had happened to him when he was a baby, another person said it interrupted their sports activities, another said it was more embarrassing. 

But if you want to make assumptions about what I mean, you go ahead - all opinions welcome here.

[floo]

Maybe other parents of girls can help with this?

My kids are constantly telling me that they feel under pressure to conform - they volunteer that information. My older daughter makes comments such as in school it is social death to be fat unless you really have something else going for you and that she has seen kids be somewhat bullied or isolated for it. Or that she was bullied and had no friends after a bad haircut in Year 3, until it grew out.

I am so very glad I never wished to conform, even if there was pressure on me to do so. Our girls have always done their own thing too and not bowed to social pressure

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.

Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah

Was it easier for Amitai Moshe

Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe

Was it easier for Oliver Asante­ Yeboah

To name just five

As I said if the statistical risk of harm outweighs the benefit then the law should clarify that infant circumcision is not lawful.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, what I actually mean is that having spoken to the few people I know who had it done later, they would have preferred to have had it done when they were a baby.

So if you want to have it done you might have preferred to have had it done as a baby, but not having it done as a baby doesn't preclude you having it done later.

If you do not want it done, clearly you would prefer that it wasn't done as a baby, and the crucial difference being that having it done as a baby does preclude you from your choice of being uncircumcised.

So saying that it is better done as an infant presumes that you know what the ultimate choice regarding circumcised vs not circumcised is once that baby grows up - which you of course cannot know.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I am so very glad I never wished to conform, even if there was pressure on me to do so. Our girls have always done their own thing too and not bowed to social pressure

I remember my brother getting involved in a fight and being cut with a knife because he felt a pressure to step in and help the group he was a part of. So it was wrong of me to just mention girls. 

[ProfessorDavey]

As I said if the statistical risk of harm outweighs the benefit then the law should clarify that infant circumcision is not lawful.

Not a good enough answer - you are sounding like a politician.

What I asked in relation to your statement that 'it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy' was:

Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.

Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah

Was it easier for Amitai Moshe

Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe

Was it easier for Oliver Asante­ Yeboah

You have failed to answer - I am asking about these specific cases - five dead babies, everyone of whom would have lived had it not been for infant circumcision. And by the way, these are just in the past few years so pretty well confirming that few of one death per 11,000 circumcisions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So if you want to have it done you might have preferred to have had it done as a baby, but not having it done as a baby doesn't preclude you having it done later.

If you do not want it done, clearly you would prefer that it wasn't done as a baby, and the crucial difference being that having it done as a baby does preclude you from your choice of being uncircumcised.

So saying that it is better done as an infant presumes that you know what the ultimate choice regarding circumcised vs not circumcised is once that baby grows up - which you of course cannot know.

Not sure what you are arguing against here. My point is that it was done during infancy as it was deemed at the time as being better for the child, but if the law was changed, Muslim parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention.  So what's the hold up?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not a good enough answer - you are sounding like a politician.

What I asked in relation to your statement that 'it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy' was:

Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.

Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah

Was it easier for Amitai Moshe

Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe

Was it easier for Oliver Asante­ Yeboah

You have failed to answer - I am asking about these specific cases - five dead babies, everyone of whom would have lived had it not been for infant circumcision. And by the way, these are just in the past few years so pretty well confirming that few of one death per 11,000 circumcisions.

I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question since of course it wasn't better for them if they are dead. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question since of course it wasn't better for them if they are dead. 

Thank you - you'd need one heck of a lot of 'benefit' to counter dead children whose death was due to completely unnecessary medical surgery.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure what you are arguing against here. My point is that it was done during infancy as it was deemed at the time as being better for the child, but if the law was changed, Muslim parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention.  So what's the hold up?

Why wait for the law to change. You could simply make a decision to change your practice, thereby supporting the notion that the choice should be that of the individual being circumcised.

The law doesn't prevent you from moving to adult circumcision, so why the hold up if (as you claim) 'parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention'. Surely it would be a win/win.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thank you - you'd need one heck of a lot of 'benefit' to counter dead children whose death was due to completely unnecessary medical surgery.

Yes you would - so a test case should determine if the perceived benefits justify the statistical risk of children dying from circumcision.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why wait for the law to change. You could simply make a decision to change your practice, thereby supporting the notion that the choice should be that of the individual being circumcised.

The law doesn't prevent you from moving to adult circumcision, so why the hold up if (as you claim) 'parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention'. Surely it would be a win/win.

Ok -  I'll just pass the message around to the whole Muslim community by email - should be changed by tomorrow, insha'Allah.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok -  I'll just pass the message around to the whole Muslim community by email - should be changed by tomorrow, insha'Allah.

Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.

If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.

If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).

How many of them fought it? There is no single Muslim community - the views are quite varied and representatives are just politically motivated people representing a handful of narrow interests.

I suspect that many Muslim parents do not have any information to counter their views that the majority of their kids are happy with the current situation. If lots of Muslims suddenly started protesting about their infant circumcision I suspect Muslims parents would have a re-think.

[wigginhall]

Yes you would - so a test case should determine if the perceived benefits justify the statistical risk of children dying from circumcision.

Possibly, but that ignores the politics of it.   In fact, it is political through and through.   I don't think any European government at the moment would dare challenge Jewish MGM, as the opposition would be fierce and world-wide.   Israel and Trump, and probably the Pope, would get involved.   No govt wants to get into that, as we saw with Merkel.   Muslim MGM is sort of similar but different.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Possibly, but that ignores the politics of it.   In fact, it is political through and through.   I don't think any European government at the moment would dare challenge Jewish MGM, as the opposition would be fierce and world-wide.   Israel and Trump, and probably the Pope, would get involved.   No govt wants to get into that, as we saw with Merkel.   Muslim MGM is sort of similar but different.

Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.

If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).

Based on current information available to parents, it is quite possible that Muslim parents think it is in the best interests of their child to undergo infant circumcision. If enough Muslims say they would prefer to make that decision when they are old enough to consent, the practice would change.

[wigginhall]

Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.

I'm sorry, I can't see any connection between what I said, and what you said.   I was saying that Western governments are extremely loath to ban Jewish MGM, as they do not want to face a massive political upset, involving no doubt, Israel, Trump, the Pope, and others.   This is nothing to do with being against MGM itself.   Politicians generally want a quiet life, and they don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism, which they would be.

[ProfessorDavey]

How many of them fought it? There is no single Muslim community - the views are quite varied and representatives are just politically motivated people representing a handful of narrow interests.

I suspect that many Muslim parents do not have any information to counter their views that the majority of their kids are happy with the current situation. If lots of Muslims suddenly started protesting about their infant circumcision I suspect Muslims parents would have a re-think.

I agree there isn't a single muslim community - but (as you indicated later) there was no consensus that the change in the law was fine and not an issue.

But the broader point that I challenged you on was you implication that it requires a change to the law to make people change their behaviour. That is only the case if they'd don't want to change their behaviour - if they do they will enact behavioural change regardless of the law.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sorry, I can't see any connection between what I said, and what you said.   I was saying that Western governments are extremely loath to ban Jewish MGM, as they do not want to face a massive political upset, involving no doubt, Israel, Trump, the Pope, and others.   This is nothing to do with being against MGM itself.   Politicians generally want a quiet life, and they don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism, which they would be.

I was just making the point that if there is a lack of political will to address the issue, maybe the issue is not significant enough yet.

Regarding the accusation of antisemitism, if lots of Jewish people want to continue a Jewish practice and lots of non-Jewish people want to end it - is that anti-Antisemitism? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree there isn't a single muslim community - but (as you indicated later) there was no consensus that the change in the law was fine and not an issue.

But the broader point that I challenged you on was you implication that it requires a change to the law to make people change their behaviour. That is only the case if they'd don't want to change their behaviour - if they do they will enact behavioural change regardless of the law.

I don't think they want to change their behaviour if they do not have a reason to. As I said I think they think their current behaviour is in the best interests of their children, until information from their children alerts them otherwise or they themselves have a re-think and form the view that an alternative behaviour is in the best interests of their children.

[wigginhall]

I was just making the point that if there is a lack of political will to address the issue, maybe the issue is not significant enough yet.

Regarding the accusation of antisemitism, if lots of Jewish people want to continue a Jewish practice and lots of non-Jewish people want to end it - is that anti-Antisemitism?

I don't think it is, or really, it would be if the opposers were saying that they want it ended, because it's Jewish.   But of course, it would still be termed anti-Semitic by some, as is criticizing Israel. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.

No I doubt that greatly. And actually I don't think this is the point - I suspect (and the tiny proportion of boys circumcised in the UK largely backs this up) that the vast majority of people don't support infant circumcision as they don't get their infants circumcised - the issue is whether people think others should have that choice regardless of their individual view and there I suspect the views are much more balanced.

However neither of these points are what stops the courts or parliament wading in - that is rather that the issue is in the 'too hard' box - opening up that box creates too many headaches (as the experience in Germany shows) - so parliament simply puts it to the bottom of its in tray and the police/courts/CPS chicken out on the basis of prosecutions not being in the public interest.

This is one of many issues that are simply allowed because of inertia/tradition that wouldn't have a hope in hell's chance of being allowing if they weren't currently.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think they want to change their behaviour if they do not have a reason to.

That's rather weak willed don't you think, particularly as you seem to imply that there is no religiously-justified reason for infant circumcision and leaving it to later massively increases its ethical validity as the person who's penis is going to be mutilated is actually the person consenting to the mutilation.

Why on earth wouldn't you want to take that moral high ground ... hmm maybe it is because there are too many who put tradition and religious custom above ethics.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No I doubt that greatly. And actually I don't think this is the point - I suspect (and the tiny proportion of boys circumcised in the UK largely backs this up) that the vast majority of people don't support infant circumcision as they don't get their infants circumcised - the issue is whether people think others should have that choice regardless of their individual view and there I suspect the views are much more balanced.

However neither of these points are what stops the courts or parliament wading in - that is rather that the issue is in the 'too hard' box - opening up that box creates too many headaches (as the experience in Germany shows) - so parliament simply puts it to the bottom of its in tray and the police/courts/CPS chicken out on the basis of prosecutions not being in the public interest.

This is one of many issues that are simply allowed because of inertia/tradition that wouldn't have a hope in hell's chance of being allowing if they weren't currently.

In which case what is the problem with letting infant circumcision die a natural death, if most people are not doing it and aren't too bothered about people who are unless enough of the children of those people who are practising it are complaining that they need to be protected from it? As you say, we don't need a change in the law for behaviour to change.