USA: Doctors Can Get Away With Circumcising a Child by Mistake

 

I was lucky I found some time to write yet another post for this blog this month! Hopefully I'll keep finding time to write about this ongoing issue in my home country.

I was scrolling through Facebook this morning, and I ran into this:

This got me thinking about the possibility of parents suing doctors who went ahead and circumcised children without permission from parents.

The problem with suing doctors in the United States is that male infant circumcision is not seen as "harm" by the people there. 80% of men in the United States are circumcised from birth (this is separate from the rate of male infant circumcision, which has fallen to 56.4% as per the CDC), so most men are likely to be circumcised, and most women are likely to be married to circumcised men and/or mothers to circumcised male children. For this reason, and this reason alone, it is more than likely that sitting judges may let doctors who circumcise children "by mistake" off the hook.

In Muncie, Indiana, a doctor circumcised a child "by mistake." The sad part of this case is that the child's family traditionally does not circumcise.

One of the witnesses downplayed the unwanted procedure because "a penis could not be used to read books published in Braille for the sight-impared."

If that's the case, a clitoris can't be used for the same purpose either.

In this case, the jury decided to let the doctor off the hook without paying any damages.

But it's not necessarily the case that a doctor will be let off every time; every once in a while, justice shines through and knife-happy doctors are held accountable.

Take the case in Florida for example.

After a mother, Vera Delgado, had told doctors over and over that she did not want her child circumcised, the child was taken away and circumcised anyway while she was away from the NICU.

In this case, the mother sued for millions of dollars and she WON. 

There have been other cases in the past where doctors faced SOME kind of accountability. I copied and pasted the following comments from the same thread as above:

 

This isn't to say that circumcision cases simply can't be won, either.

In most cases where a circumcision goes beyond acceptable "harm" (destroying any healthy part of the body IS "harm"), parents are successful in suing doctors for millions. (Do a search on my blog for "litigation" and/or "lawsuits." I've posted plenty on here.)

But that's just it; in order for a circumcision to be considered "harmful" it has to go beyond what many doctors and nurses consider "harmless"; for those who perform circumcision, taking a child's foreskin, ripping it from its adhesion to the glans, crushing it in a clamp and then slicing it off, where 99.9% of human males are born with a foreskin, isn't considered "harm."

A circumcision botch where part or all of the glans (AKA "head of the penis"), "that" is "harm."

Are we seriously going to depend on subjective ideas of "harm?

Because whether we like it or not, female circumcision (AKA "FGM") isn't considered "harm" by people in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Egypt, Sudan and others.

Let's imagine a couple of hypothetical situations.

What if an expatriate had their daughter in one of the above countries, and the daughter was circumcised "by mistake" in a hospital there?

Or what if a doctor from one of those countries immigrates to the United States and circumcises a child "by mistake?"

Could his or her alibi be "Well, I don't consider it harm?"

That is now a thinkable possibility, given the fact that the ban on FGM in the United States has been deemed "unconstitutional" by a judge in a recent case.

What about "parental choice," which is quite possibly one of the greatest defenses of male infant circumcision in the US?

But most of all, what about a person's individual basic human rights to his own body?

From the same Facebook thread as above, a paralegal gave his account of a father who discovered his son was already circumcised after doctors kept asking him and his wife to sign the consent forms. The father demanded to see his child first, and that's how he found out.

 

 

I've heard it be commented before by some mothers, that doctors and nurses told them that they couldn't leave the hospital until the baby was circumcised. From the same thread:

I've also heard of cases where the parents put their foot down on not having their child circumcised, and the hospital billing them for it anyway. Someone commented on this same thread:

Circumcision is a moneymaker, so of course there financial incentive for doctors and nurses to push male infant circumcision on parents, even if it means lying to them about not having a choice in the matter.

As concerned American parents, we have got to stand up and demand to know what's going on here.

What is the AAP telling professionals across the country?

That it's OK to push male infant genital mutilation on parents in whatever which way possible?

There are CONSENT forms that need to be signed.

What's with this "You can't leave the hospital until the child is circumcised" BS?

Do American parents have to simply always be watching their children like a hawk?

It seems that's what we've got to do, because even if we refuse to sign the circumcision consent forms and demand doctors not mutilate our children, there's nothing we can do legally.

From the same thread:

For any parent interested in litigation against doctors, nurses or hospitals that circumcised their children against their consent and express wishes, there is one group of lawyers that I know you should contact, and that's Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, AKA "ARCLaw." Google them, or click on the link down under "External Links." (Or, click here.)

 
In a country where doctors can get away with mutilating your child's genitals, parents need to be warned and forearmed.

David Llewellyn: "The Circumcision Lawyer"
On the same thread above, an attorney can be seen commenting.

 That attorney is none other than David J. Llewellyn.

 
He is an unsung hero of the intactivist movement. One of his specialties is male infant circumcision. He is in fact the same David J. Llewellyn who sued Mogen out of business in a 11-million dollar lawsuit. A news article regarding this lawsuit can be read here. He has handled other million-dollar lawsuits as well. If there is anyone who knows about litigation involving male infant circumcision, it's this man. He has a Facebook page here, as well as his own website, at thecircumcisionlawyer.com.

Related Posts:
Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

External Links:
NBC Miami: Lawsuit Over Baby's Unwanted Circumcision 

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

The Crimson Joins Harvard in Filing "Motion to Dismiss"

 

Earlier this month, I posted about how Harvard University basically wants to shrug off Eric Clopper's lawsuit for defamation by filing a "motion to dismiss."

And now, it appears the university's publication, The Crimson, which has also been implicated in the lawsuit, has responded in turn with its own "motion to dismiss."

There is no doubt that a third "motion to dismiss" by the third party implicated in this lawsuit, Baystate Sound, is to be expected.

I'm just going to quickly comment on how bold-faced these actions are before letting you read for yourself what Eric Clopper has said in his mailing list below.

How brazen it is of Harvard and their publication, and Baystate Sound to collude in the deliberate defamation of Eric Clopper to then attempt to brush it off.

Harvard University, The Crimson and Baystate Sound colluded in the defamation of Eric Clopper and the violation of his constitutional rights, not to mention the University's own stated conviction to Freedom of Speech and the pursuit of truth.

 

The following is a message sent out by Eric Clopper:

It's been twelve weeks since I filed my complaint against Harvard and their student newspaper The Crimson to begin my lawsuit against them for the violation for free speech, defamation, conspiracy and other claims.

The Crimson has responded my to complaint with their own 12(b)(6) motion, called a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim." This is the same type of motion Harvard filed a week prior to The Crimson. It is essentially their "so what?" defense.

I have updated the docket so you can read The Crimson's motion, i.e. Doc 36, available at https://www.clopper.com/docket.

As a reminder, this motion is essentially The Crimson's "So what?" defense. These motions argue (in the generic sense, not specific to my case), "Let's assume all your alleged facts are true. Even if they are true, so what? There are no legal remedies for the facts as you state them."

You can read The Crimson's "So what?" defense (DOC #36) and compare them to my Complaint (DOC #1) then form your own opinion.

Please feel free to add your thoughts and comments below the filings on my site.

 

Eric Clopper fights a three-way fight:

First and foremost, he fights to defend his reputation, since officials at Harvard, The Crimson and Baystate Sound colluded to attack his character.

Second, he fights to be heard, as the university's actions are a clear affront to his and others' Freedom of Speech, and their clear and express wish is to silence him.

And third, he fights for truth and raising awareness as to what is happening in hospitals across the United States; the gross and deliberate violation of basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals in the name of pseudoscience and religion.

Follow Eric Clopper
 

If you would like to help Eric Clopper in his litigation against Harvard University, or if you're simply interested in finding out more, visit Eric's web page:
https://www.clopper.com/

Subscribe to Eric's YouTube:
Eric's YouTube Channel
 

Follow Eric on Instagram:
@cloppersays

Watch Eric Clopper's Performance

You can watch Eric's full 2-hour performance on YouTube.

Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story

Related Posts:

Harvard Responds to Eric Clopper with a "Motion to Dismiss"

 

Human Rights Activist Eric Clopper Files Lawsuit Vs. Harvard

 
Eric Clopper Needs Your Help

Harvard Porn-Shames Employee for Anti-Circumcision Show

Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

Harvard Responds to Eric Clopper with a "Motion to Dismiss"

In my last post related to this ongoing saga, we learned that Eric Clopper filed a lawsuit against Harvard University for enacting a smear campaign against him for show he put on at Harvard's Sanders Theatre. (Please read about this in my last post and on related posts listed at the end of this post.)

Just yesterday, Eric Clopper sent out an e-mail updating us as to the situation of the lawsuit he filed against Harvard. The e-mail reads as follows:

It's been ten weeks since I filed my complaint against Harvard et al. to begin my lawsuit against them for the violation of my right to free speech and other claims.

To extend the courtesy to defendants Harvard and The Crimson that they never extended to me during their "investigation," retaliation, and defamation campaign against me following my play, I wanted to give you the opportunity to read their latest arguments that they made and then filed with the federal court.

To this end, I have compiled ALL public court documents and uploaded them to my website at https://www.clopper.com/docket (updated periodically)

The first substantive argument Defendant Harvard has filed with the federal court is their "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim." (DOC #30)

This motion was described to me in law school as a "So what?" defense. These motions argue (in the generic sense, not specific to my case), "Let's assume all your alleged facts are true. Even if they are true, so what? There are no legal remedies for the facts as you state them."

You can read Harvard's "So what?" defense (DOC #30) and compare them to my Complaint (DOC #1) then form your own opinion.

Please feel free to add your thoughts and comments below the filings on my site.

More soon,

Clopper

I don't have time to comment long on these situations nowadays, but it appears Harvard is trying to get away with the defamation. In addition to denying the very thing Harvard has historically made the case for, free speech, they went on to smear and defame Eric Clopper, and now they want to fold their hands and pretend as if they shouldn't be held responsible.

It is my hope that, for the good of Freedom of Speech, for the good of university students everywhere, but most of all, for the awareness of true and factual information regarding what is quite possibly the most common elective, cosmetic procedure in the country, and for the advancement of equal rights for male infants, justice prevails.

In a way, Harvard's heinous acts can be seen as a blessing. Had Harvard merely kept quiet and let Eric's show be, he wouldn't have garnered much attention. But due to the fact that Harvard wants to play hard-ball, this is giving attention to Eric and his message, perhaps more attention than the male infant circumcision advocates at Harvard had intended.

For those of you wishing to help Eric Clopper in his litigation against Harvard, please visit his website here.

Related Posts:

Human Rights Activist Eric Clopper Files Lawsuit Vs. Harvard

 
Eric Clopper Needs Your Help

Harvard Porn-Shames Employee for Anti-Circumcision Show

Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

Human Rights Activist Eric Clopper Files Lawsuit Vs. Harvard

I'm a little late in the game when it comes to reporting this, but as they say, "Better late than never."

Your blogger is busy with life and he somehow wishes he could be both an intactivist and supporting himself financially... Oh well... The best I can do is support other more important, more prominent intactivists...

On May 1st, 2018, Eric Clopper performed a play called Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story at Harvard University's Sanders Theatre, where he staged the world's ultimate take-down of male infant circumcision as both a medical and religious ritual.

For this, Clopper was immediately placed on leave pending "a full review of the May 1 performance and events leading up to it."

Harvard suspended Clopper for 2 months for a supposed "investigation," during which Harvard’s student news paper, The Crimson, published 5 libelous articles against him, and refused to publish his letter to the editor.

In addition, to having solicited claims against him and eliminated his position, Harvard colluded with the sound company that handled Clopper’s show to obtain intimate footage of his, which they then showed to senior administrators, his boss, his friends and colleagues.

In essence, Harvard University, The Crimson and Baystate Sound colluded in a smear campaign against Clopper.

But why would anyone want to do this?

The answer is clear:

Officials at Harvard and their accomplices would like to cancel Eric Clopper because his message and take-down of male infant circumcision is solid, and they have vested interest in protecting male infant circumcision and those who perpetuate it.

That is the tactic and strategy of people who have no logical leg to stand on; cancel and silence.

So solid and irrefutable is Clopper's message, that the only chance people who want to silence him have is to disenfranchise him by attacking his character and plaguing him with financial ruin and shame.

That same year, Clopper set out to play David to Harvard's Goliath, setting up a GoFundMe to cover litigation expenses.

And now, it seems, Eric Clopper is finally armed and ready to fight.

On July 27, 2020 this year, he posted the following video on YouTube:




He says:

“My attorneys and I have officially filed suit against Harvard and other parties for the violation of my Constitutional Rights and other claims in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts.

If you'd like to support my and my attorney's legal efforts, and to get a copy of the pleadings, you can go to my site, subscribe for updates if you'd like, donate to our effort if you can, and there are various ways to get in touch with me if you'd like : https://www.clopper.com/harvard-lawsuit”

I am going to be relatively quiet in the immediate future, but in the coming months and year, I will have many updates on this and other issues.

Clopper fights a three-way fight:

First and foremost, he fights to defend his reputation, since officials at Harvard, The Crimson and Baystate Sound colluded to attack his character.

Second, he fights to be heard, as the university's actions are a clear affront to his and others' Freedom of Speech, and their clear and express wish is to silence him.

And third, he fights for truth and raising awareness as to what is happening in hospitals across the United States; the gross and deliberate violation of basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals in the name of pseudoscience and religion.

Follow Eric Clopper
Visit Eric's web page:
https://www.clopper.com/

Subscribe to Eric's YouTube:
Eric's YouTube Channel
 

Follow Eric on Instagram:
@cloppersays

Watch Eric Clopper's Performance

You can watch Eric's full 2-hour performance on YouTube.

Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story

Related Posts:
Eric Clopper Needs Your Help

Harvard Porn-Shames Employee for Anti-Circumcision Show

Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

DETROIT: FGM Now Legal in US

I had been following the Detroit FGM court case (see related posts below), and it seems the case has finally reached it's conclusion:

According to The Detroit News, the most serious remaining charge against the doctor accused of FGM has been dropped, adding the final nail in the coffin for the federal ban on FGM of 2006.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised at the results.

I knew it would end like this.

Americans would rather sacrifice the rights of baby girls on the altar of "religious freedom" rather than bring that elephant in the room, the forced genital cutting of baby boys that happens 3,000 times a day, into question.

I'm not going to comment long like I usually do.

I'm just going to close with the statements and questions I usually ask:

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery, on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How far are doctors expected to comply with "parental decisions?"

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

(Exact statistics on either male or male infant circumcision are unknown because those who perform them do not collect or report them, and governments do not require them to because they want to avoid being seen as "infringers of religious freedom.")

How is any of this conscionable given that male infant circumcision is non-medical, non-therapeutic?

Rough times lie ahead, but I am confident in that the truth cannot be hidden long.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all." ~Sophocles

Perhaps this decision being handed down during the current coronavirus scare was strategic; people are distracted by the current pandemic.

But it doesn't matter.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. During wartime it takes longer."--Sheila Steele

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Poetry Corner - Mutilation

In my last Poery Corner addition, I posted an original poem I wrote, expressing what I would tell a doctor should he have the gall to ask me whether I would let him circumcise one of my sons. I wrote a series of poems and song parodies for a contest that centered around male infant circumcision, which encouraged original songs, poems and parodies of other works.


This is my 8th and final addition to Poetry Corner (that is unless I get inspired to write more). It is a parody of a song called "Clandestino" by an artist named Manu Chao.

This song is sung from the standpoint of an illegal immigrant who moves back and forth over the border, hiding, changing his name, and moving quickly to avoid the law. (Original lyrics and translation found at the bottom of this post.

When I first heard the song, it sounded like the man was being accused over and over again. The hook of the song repeats the word "Clandestino" over and over again. I felt sorry for the character in the song, for his only "crime" was trying to earn a living most people who are immigrating "illegally" have no other recourse than to risk their lives.

I wanted to write a poem or parody of a song that reflected a similar plight; the innosence of young boys. In most cases, baby boys are born healthy, and their only "illness" from the standpoint of circumcising doctors and/or a circumcising culture is having a foreskin; anatomy that all boys have at birth.

The repitition in the hook of this song, the accusatory tone and feel of it, made me reimagine it as a condemnation of circumcision and doctors who perform it. I wanted to write parody lyrics to this song, especially taking advantage of the harsh, relentless accusation found in the hook, but something was missing; the song told the story of a man, and I wanted my parody to tell a story also.

I found my inspiration in the story of a boy who was circumcised against his mother's wishes.

Not too long ago, in 2010, the story of a boy in the state of Florida who was circumcised to his mother's dismay, made headlines. The boy was in the NICU because of birth-related complications, and doctors circumcised him while the mother was away.

This wouldn't have been the first case. In another case, courts let the doctor off the hook without paying any damages because it would "open the courthouse door to every kid who's been circumcised," and besides, "no evidence was presented to indicate being circumcised would prevent the youth from having a happy and productive life."


As if resilience from abuse were even relevant.

First off, the reasoning that "it would open the courthouse door" to others who have been wronged in the same way is a logically fallacious reason to dismiss an offense. (See Slippery Slope.) For this reason, courts could dismiss any other case. Imagine courts letting bank robbers and shop lifters off the hook because "it would open the courthouse door to every bank or establishment who has been robbed."




Having "a happy and productive life" is no justification for wrong doing. With the proper counseling, victims of rape and child abuse grow up to have happy and fulfilling lives, but this does not excuse the actions of the perpetrator.

No amount of counseling is going to give this child his normal intact organs back.

He's going to have to live with permanently marred organs for the rest of his life, and his parents are going to have to live with the fact that a doctor abused them and their child, and there is legally nothing that they could do about it.

Our society is ready to downplay and dismiss the forced genital cutting of males, even when doctors circumcise a child against his parents' wishes, and this is frustrating as an activist for basic human rights.

I wanted to write a poem/song parody which tells the story of children who fall victims of knife-happy doctors, and Manu Chao's "Clandestino" presented what I saw as an opportunity to both tell the story of boys like these, and to accuse circumcising doctors and their accomplices harshly.

To do this, I must reimagine the song to have two points of view.

In the original song, the teller of the story and the subject of accusation is one and the same; the "Clandestine" immigrant.

However, in my parody, while the story is about boys who are forcibly circumcised, I use the hook to accuse the doctor perpetrators, and expose the words "circumcision" and "circumcisers" for the euphemisms that they are. I am the judge, and in my parody, I do what the judges in these cases should be doing; condemning circumcising doctors for the charlatans they are.

Without further ado, "Mutilation."

Mutilation

Silent goes my screaming
Silent goes my struggle
Punished for the error
Of being born a boy
Fastened to a cutting board
I await behind closed doors
For docs to have their pleasure
I'm nothing but a toy

I was born a c-section
Barely struggling to survive
The doctors couldn't wait
To have me promptly circumcised
My mom tried very hard
To protect me from the blade
But when her back was turned
Doctors came and had their way

Silent goes my screaming
Silent goes my struggle
Punished for the error
Of being born a boy
Fastened to a cutting board
I await behind closed doors
For docs to have their pleasure
I'm but a doctor's joy

Circumcision, Mutilation!
Circumcisers, Mutilators!
Circum-studies, pseudo-science!
Molestation, child rape!

Silent go the botches
Silent go the murders
These men are in the business
Of mutilating boys
Burning with sadistic lust
They violate parental trust
They offer needless cutting
And call it "parent choice"

Circumcision, mutilation!
Circumcisers, mutilators!
Snake oil salesmen, baby butchers!
Opportunist charlatans!

Original Lyrics in Spanish:

Clandestino
 
Solo voy con mi pena
Sola va mi condena
Correr es mi destino
Para burlar la ley
Perdido en el corazón
De la grande Babylon
Me dicen el clandestino
Por no llevar papel

Pa' una ciudad del norte
Yo me fui a trabajar
Mi vida la dejé
Entre Ceuta y Gibraltar
Soy una raya en el mar
Fantasma en la ciudad
Mi vida va prohibida
Dice la autoridad

Solo voy con mi pena
Sola va mi condena
Correr es mi destino
Por no llevar papel
Perdido en el corazón
De la grande Babylon
Me dicen el clandestino
Yo soy el quiebra ley

Mano Negra, ¡Clandestina!
Peruano, ¡Clandestino!
Africano, ¡Clandestino!
Marijuana, ¡Ilegal!

Solo voy con mi pena
Sola va mi condena
Correr es mi destino
Para burlar la ley
Perdido en el corazón
De la grande Babylon
Me dicen el clandestino
por no llevar papel

Argelino, ¡Clandestino!
Nigeriano, ¡Clandestino!
Boliviano, ¡Clandestino!
Mano negra, ¡Ilegal!

Clandestino

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

Por no llevar papel

 

Pa' una ciudad del norte

Yo me fui a trabajar

Mi vida la dejé

Entre Ceuta y Gibraltar

Soy una raya en el mar

Fantasma en la ciudad

Mi vida va prohibida

Dice la autoridad

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Por no llevar papel

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

 

Yo soy el quiebra ley

Mano Negra clandestina

Peruano clandestino

Africano clandestino

Marijuana ilegal

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

por no llevar papel

 

Argelino, clandestino

Nigeriano clandestino

Boliviano clandestino

mano negra illegal

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/-clandestine.html

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

Por no llevar papel

 

Pa' una ciudad del norte

Yo me fui a trabajar

Mi vida la dejé

Entre Ceuta y Gibraltar

Soy una raya en el mar

Fantasma en la ciudad

Mi vida va prohibida

Dice la autoridad

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Por no llevar papel

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

 

Yo soy el quiebra ley

Mano Negra clandestina

Peruano clandestino

Africano clandestino

Marijuana ilegal

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

por no llevar papel

 

Argelino, clandestino

Nigeriano clandestino

Boliviano clandestino

mano negra illegal

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/-clandestine.html

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

Por no llevar papel

 

Pa' una ciudad del norte

Yo me fui a trabajar

Mi vida la dejé

Entre Ceuta y Gibraltar

Soy una raya en el mar

Fantasma en la ciudad

Mi vida va prohibida

Dice la autoridad

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Por no llevar papel

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

 

Yo soy el quiebra ley

Mano Negra clandestina

Peruano clandestino

Africano clandestino

Marijuana ilegal

 

Solo voy con mi pena

Sola va mi condena

Correr es mi destino

Para burlar la ley

Perdido en el corazón

De la grande Babylon

Me dicen el clandestino

por no llevar papel

 

Argelino, clandestino

Nigeriano clandestino

Boliviano clandestino

mano negra illegal

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/-clandestine.html

Original Lyrics translation:

Clandestine One

Alone go I with my shame
Alone goes my condemnation
To run is my destiny
To evade the law
Lost in the heart
Of the great Babylon
They call me "The Clandestine One"
For not having papers

To a city in the north
I went to find a job
I left behind my life
Between Ceuta and Gibraltar
I'm a line in the sea
A ghost in the city
My life is forbidden
So say the authorities

Alone go I with my shame
Alone goes my condemnation
To run is my destiny
To evade the law
Lost in the heart
Of the great Babylon
They call me "The Clandestine One"
I am the law breaker

"Mano Negra*,"  Clandestine One!
Peruvian,  Clandestine One
African,  Clandestine One
Marijuana, Illegal!

Alone go I with shame
Alone goes my condemnation
To run is my destiny
To evade the law
Lost in the heart
Of the great Babylon
They call me "The Clandestine One"
For not having papers

Algerian, Clandestine One!
Nigerian, Clandestine One!
Bolivian, Clandestine One!
"Mano Negra*," Illegal!

*"Mano Negra" is the name of a French music group active from 1987 to 1995 and fronted by Manu Chao.

Related Posts: 

Poetry Corner - What Say Ye? Oh Doctor?

 

Poetry Corner - To Me

Poetry Corner - Circumcision Scar

Poetry Corner - Lullaby For the Damned

Poetry Corner - Song Parody: "My Foreskin Home"

Poetry Corner - Poor Little Guy

Poetry Corner - Haiku

Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Related Links:

ABC News: Miami Hospital Circumcises Baby By Mistake

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.

A year ago on June 2, 2017, I asked the question:

How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.

Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.

You cannot have it both ways.

Recapitulation

In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.

This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."

Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.

Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.

Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.

A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.

Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.

On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.

It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."

On the other hand, a landmark win would mean  a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.

A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

Today, we read about the outcome of this case.

History Made
So what was it going to be?

The protection of "religious freedom?"

Or the protection of basic human rights?

For all people?

The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.

On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."

The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman

I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision.

Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead. 

But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.

I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways.

The Ramifications of This Decision
I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.

Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.

Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.

The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.

Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.

The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.

In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.

Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.

Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.

This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.

It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.

The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.

Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.

The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.

Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.

Ultimately the question is this:

What is more important?

"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"

Or basic human rights?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be.

What's it going to be, FGM activists?

What's it going to be, world?

Knock-knock!

Reality is here.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Link:

Detroit Free Press: Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

Harvard Porn-Shames Employee for Anti-Circumcision Show

In my last post, I wrote about how Harvard University was trying to censor Eric Clopper for his intactivist show “Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story.” It turns out that what they’re actually doing is far worse.

It would be one thing if the university administration merely fired him and told him to look elsewhere for a job because they were “offended” or whatever bullshit reason they could come up with.

Instead, Eric Clopper reveals on his GoFundMe page that not only did Harvard’s student news paper The Crimson publish 5 libelous articles against him, they refused to publish his letter to the editor.

Harvard suspended Clopper for 2 months for a supposed “investigation,” during which they solicited claims against him and eliminated his position.

And, as if that weren’t enough, Harvard colluded with the sound company that handled Clopper’s show to obtain intimate footage of his, which they then showed to senior administrators, his boss, his friends and colleagues.

This is a screen shot from a video College Humor did on circumcision.
Actually, Eric Clopper uses the video in his show.

In essence, Harvard University, The Crimson and Baystate Sound engaged in a smear campaign against Clopper.

Obviously his show pinched some nerves, and now people are trying to shut him down.

This is no different than if people were trying to porn-shame women who performed in the Vagina Monologues.

Clopper effectively, conclusively and irrefutably destroys the lie that male infant circumcision before an audience.

He highlights the historical reasons circumcision was performed on males, a lot of which are beliefs still held today.

He takes apart the pseudo-science used to prop up the claim that circumcision has "medical benefits"

He exposes the AAP and the so-called "circumcision task-force" for the frauds they are, and for the crock of deliberate lies they try and feed the public.

He attacks the conflict of interests that Jewish doctors and physicians have when propping up the so-called "medical benefits."

He rejects the Jewish covenant imposed on him as an infant and openly repudiates it.

This man's presentation is an indictment of American medicine and America as a whole for holding on to, repeating, and perpetuating a lie which is clear and obvious to anyone well-versed in basic human anatomy, history and medicine, basically the rest of the English-speaking world.

It is a call to action that we reject this lie for truth, and to protect the most basic, the most fundamental human rights of the next generation.

I recon this does not sit will with the AAP, Jewish members of Harvard, and gentiles who are circumcised themselves, spouses of circumcised men, or parents of circumcised children, who do not want to have to question this, who fear the spread of Eric Clopper's message.

His message is solid.

So solid and irrefutable, that the only chance people who want to silence him have is to attack his character and plague him with financial ruin and shame.

You can shoot the messenger, but the message stands or falls on its own.

I beseech my readers to please help this man with whatever you can.

Help him win his fight against those who are trying to shame him into silence.

Watch and help spread his video.

Male infant circumcision is a crime against humanity.

It is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

It is scientific profanity and an insult to human intelligence.

It is a sick, disgusting, bold-faced lie respected medical organizations in the rest of the world can see right through, and it's about time American medical organizations stop telling it.

Links to Eric Clopper's webpage, his video and his GoFundMe page can be found at the bottom of this post.


Related Links:

Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

External Links: 

https://www.clopper.com/

Eric's 2-hour performance on YouTube (Watch while it's still available.) 

Eric Clopper's Go Fund Me Page