While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

The Israeli Knesset's efforts to replace the recent resolution adopted by the Council of Europe, which calls the non-medical circumcision of minors a human rights violation, with their own, culminated in a parliamentary hearing, which took place in Strasbourg last week.

As part of their campaign, the Knesset produced a promotional film, which they aired at the PACE hearing, in hopes of getting their wish that the latest PACE resolution be replaced, vindicating the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors.

Meanwhile, in New York, yet another case of a baby contracting herpes after a traditional Jewish circumcision ritual, where a mohel sucks the wounded penis of a newly circumcised child (AKA, Metzitzah b'peh) makes the news. (Incidentally, the current mayor has shelved his promise to repeal the New York law that requires mohels to inform parents of the risks of Metzitzah for the time being.)

Those who support the current resolution also stated their case.

More information on the hearing available here.

I wonder if the Knesset included Metzitzah b'peh as part of their film...

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

 

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Common Sense in Israel

In an earlier post, I commented on how a rabbinical court in Israel was forcing a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son, by fining her about $140 a day until she went through with her child's circumcision, in order to appease her ex-husband's wishes.

The woman has appealed to the High Court of Justice, and it looks like and the fine has been suspended.

It's kind of sad that this is the way it works in Israel, where rabbinical courts have legal jurisdiction over, marriage, divorce, and the rights of a child, and that the woman had to go through the trouble she did to protect her son's rights.

Where else but in Israel do religious authorities decry that the European Council is "infringing on religious freedoms," while they coerce a woman circumcise her son by fining her $140 daily.

Related Posts:

ISRAEL: "Religious Freedom" a One-Way Street

EUROPE: Israel MKs Turn Up the Heat

Earlier, I commented on the fact that the European Council finally dared to call a spade a spade and declare medically unnecessary circumcision on healthy, non-consenting children to be a human rights violation.

I also mentioned that, unsurprisingly, Jewish groups and even the State of Israel have vowed to make the European Council rescind.

The Jerusalem Post reports on the progress of Knesset initiatives:

The Knesset has made significant efforts to collect signatures from European parliamentarians on a counter-resolution it seeks to pass in April, reaching 102 signatures as opposed to 77 MPs who voted for the anti-circumcision measure.

The [Reuven] Rivlin-led delegation will meet with leaders of four of the Council of Europe’s five factions to convince them to put the Knesset’s counter-resolution on the PACE agenda for either late January or April. The Presidium, which consists of faction chairpeople, will set the agenda for those two meetings on December 15.

According to Rivlin, the anti-circumcision measure (Was it a definitive, binding measure, or a declaration?) “is not a legitimate decision, and it is a joint goal of Jews, Muslims and anyone who believes in freedom of religion and conscience to cancel it.”

Rivlin, Vaknin and Hoffman plan to meet with party leaders and members of the Council of Europe’s Presidium and present them with the 102 signatures from PACE members, aiming to show that the original measure was passed unfairly when only a small number of MPs were present.

 “We want to make it clear to the Europeans that even if it’s legitimate for them to intervene in diplomatic or regional issues, it is not legitimate for them to be involved in Judaism and freedom of religion.” ~Reuven Rivlin

This "freedom of religion."

How far does it extend? Does it extend to religions whose followers circumcise girls and women? Perhaps it's illegitimate for Europeans to intervene with religions whose followers marry and have sex with little girls. Or does this "freedom of religion" only apply to Judaism when it concerns the forced genital mutilation of specifically male, newborn children?

"Freedom of religion" is a weak argument, and Jewish advocates of male infant genital mutilation know it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lecture Europeans on the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision.

It must certainly be asked, since when do adherents of Judaism, where circumcision is considered divine commandment, care about "research" and "medical benefits?" And since when is it the jurisdiction of governing bodies, such as the Knesset, to make medical value judgements on surgical procedures?

It's not surprising that I'm seeing this happen, and as I've mentioned before regarding other attempts to ban infant genital mutilation, it will not be surprising when the Council of Europe caves to Jewish demands, rescinds their bold move, and offers some sort of "apology" for having dared to call infant circumcision the genital mutilation that it is.

The despair of religious circumcision advocates must be noted. So desperate are religious infant genital mutilation zealots that they go as far as feigning an interest in public health, and as far as citing "research" that may as well be published in tabloids at grocery store check-out lines.

From the Jerusalem Post:

"In addition, last month, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Sydney proving circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure."

Had the authors paid any attention, they would have noticed that the "research" was actually published in August.

Not mentioned here is the fact that the "researchers" are none other than long-time circumcision zealot Brian Morris and his friends, and that the research doesn't actually "prove" anything. Brian Morris didn't conduct any "study," rather, the "research" is nothing more than Brian Morris giving his approval and disapproval for "studies" he himself hand-picked, yielding results he wants.

In short, yet another decidedly myopic opinion piece by a known circumcision enthusiast.

Notice that Knesset leaders are careful not to mention the fact that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

In essence, Knesset MKs, along with Brian Morris, are taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west.

I will not be surprised.

I will not be surprised when and if the resolution put forth by the Council of Europe is replaced with the new dictum from Israel.

But I will also not be discouraged.

I have mentioned it numerous times on this blog already, that legislation is secondary and is not the end-all, be-all of the intactivist cause.

Whether governments ban or legalize the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants means nothing.

Laws follow societal change, not lead it.

Even if the European Council succumbs to Israeli blackmail, it is ever clear that change is inevitable, and circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is finished.

The truth is out, and can be no longer hidden.

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

ISRAEL: "Religious Freedom" a One-Way Street

In advance, I'd like to apologize to my readers for the bad quality of my latest posts. I barely have anytime to throw this one together. Please bear with me, forgive the recent hastiness with which I write, and forgive me where I could have expressed myself better.

On with my post...
Even in Israel, circumcision is being questioned, and there are Jewish parents who are choosing to forgo infant circumcision for their male newborns, in lieu of leaving the choice up to them when they are adults. This does not sit well with rabbinical authorities, however, and it looks like they're trying to make an example out of a dissenting woman.

To make a long story short, a rabbinical court in Israel (rabbinical courts have legal jurisdiction over religious questions, including marriage and divorce, concerning the country's Jewish majority), is forcing a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son.

As part of the divorce process, her ex-husband has asked the rabbinical court to compel her to circumcise her son, who is now 1 year old, and was never circumcised in accordance with Judaism.

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son,

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

The woman tried to argue that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, but her argument was rejected by the rabbinical judges, and the court is now fining her about $140 a day until she goes through with her child's circumcision, in order to appease her ex-husband's wishes.

The rabbinical judges claim the woman was opposing her son's circumcision as leverage to keep her husband from divorcing her, but this is strange, as, apparently, her husband didn't have a problem with their son not being circumcised until now that they're getting divorced. It would seem, at least to me, that it is quite the opposite; the man wants to use the child as leverage to keep the woman from leaving, if not permanently mark the child in his flesh as a means of retaliation against her for divorcing him.

While the rabbinical judges claim to simply be siding with the father, they have also referred explicitly to the growing debate around ritual male circumcision elsewhere in the world, and voiced their fear of a precedent that could be created if a Jewish Israeli succeeded in keeping her son whole.

Quoth the rabbinical judges:

“We have witnessed for some time now public and legal struggles against the brit milah in many countries in Europe and in the United States. The public in Israel has stood as one man (Really? Are they speaking for all of Israel?) against these trends, seeing them as yet another aspect of displays of anti-Semitism that must be combatted. How will the world react if even here the issue of circumcision is given to the discretion of any person, according to their own beliefs?”

Indeed, how would the world react if "religious freedom" was actually practiced in Israel, by those who expressly demand it in other parts of the world?

Meanwhile, in Sweden...
Meanwhile, in Sweden, a Jewish woman is claiming asylum in her own country, "for the right to live a religious life, to preserve our cultural identity, and to be who we are without fear of persecution." She protests that Jews are losing the right to practice their religious observances, namely kosher meat slaughter and, you guessed it, circumcision.

"This is the self-image—the reality—that Jewish children in Sweden grow up with: being Jewish means being under threat of harm from bad people. This is where we are at.  One by one, our practices are being outlawed. Attacks on us are going unpunished. Politicians, journalists, and intellectuals describe us as barbarians."

I wonder what self-image the child in this case, what "reality," he'll have to grow up with; what threats HE has to live under. While a Jewish practice is being outlawed in Sweden, it is outright being forced in Israel. Is it any wonder that anyone describes Jews as "barbarians?"

"True: we are not being murdered, and we are not being physically driven out. But our religious observances are being interdicted, our persons are being threatened, our safety is being endangered, and—in short—our human rights are being violated."

 Do tell, madam, do tell.

"Why do we put up with it? And why do pundits and politicians assure me that Jews in Sweden are perfectly safe when what they really mean is that we will be safe only so long as we agree to become invisible as Jews and cease to practice Judaism?"

Funny word she uses here... "invisible..." Here, it means a Jew who ceases to practice "Judaism," at least as she defines it, but in Israel, "invisible" means quite the opposite. (A good Israeli Jew is one who complies with all Jewish customs, including the one that says you must cut your children's genitals.)

"EU statutes provide that asylum be granted to persons with “well-founded reasons to fear persecution due to race; nationality; religious or political beliefs; gender; sexual orientation; or affiliation to a particular social group.” Jews in Sweden meet these criteria, and should be eligible for the same protection and support extended to non-natives."

I wonder if the woman in this divorce case meets these criteria and is eligible for this same protection and support... in her own country...

"And so today, November 18, I am legally filing for refugee status and asylum—not in America, not in Israel, but here in Sweden, my own country.
Absurd?  No doubt."

Absurd?

Let's hear what she has to say about this divorced woman in Israel.

To close:
So while in Sweden, a woman "files for asylum" because she demands the right to mutilate her (male) children in the name of "freedom," a religious court in Israel is forcing a woman to go against her own beliefs that her son should be free to make his own choice.

That's funny, because right now Israel's Knesset has sent evangelist MK's to Europe to try to get the Council of Europe to void their latest resolution declaring circumcision the violation of basic human rights that it is, on grounds that it violates "religious freedom."

While in Europe, Israeli officials are demanding "religious freedoms" be respected (nevermind the religious freedoms of the children involved), in Israel, rabbinical courts get to trample on the religious of both citizens AND their children.

Am I missing something?

Who should be filing for asylum here?

Just imagine if an Islamic court were forcing a divorcee to cut their daughter. Isn't Israel supposed to be like, the only democracy in the Middle East?

What would be the public outcry?

What utter shame and hypocrisy.

The very least the rabbinical judges in this case can do is grant this woman the freedom they claim they demand for Jews in other parts of the world.

If you want to help:
A Facebook group has been created dedicated to helping this woman out, to those who are interested.

"We're looking for help with this case, most urgently a way to donate money for the legal fees and the fines this mom is racking up. If we could piggyback on an existing charitable organization that would be great. All ideas are welcome."

UPDATE (11/27/2013):
An interview with Elinor, the mother in this case, can be read here.

Related Articles:
Haaretz

The Jewish Press

The Telegraph

+972

Mosaic

SACRILEGE: Millionaire Dani Johnson Boasts Grandson's Circumcision

Very recently, money mogul Dani Johnson openly bragged on her Facebook page about her grandson having had his genitals ritually mutilated by a rabbi. (Link may not work as she may have deactivated her post or taken it down.)

Reads the caption with a picture she posted:

"My little grandson Anthem Hosea was circumcised today by a Rabbi. Such an awesome experience to witness. I was blown when Arika told me she and Zac wanted a Rabbi to do the procedure. So deliberately making a covenant with the God of Israel, the Maker of the Heavens and the Earth, the God of Abraham. (Get ready for the hate mail)....I really DONT CARE!!! I know who I am and WHO has blessed me!! I love Him with my WHOLE HEART and I am NOT ashamed of the Gospel of Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah)."

She doesn't seem concerned that the experience may not have been so "awesome" for her grandson.

She doesn't seem to actually understand her own faith and the implications of a rabbi performing a Jewish blood rite on her gentile grandson.

She says she's "not ashamed of the gospel," yet she seems to be oblivious to what it actually says. She seems oblivious to the whole meaning of the word "Christian," where Christians are supposed to be saved by the grace of Christ (hence the name CHRISTian) and not by the keeping of Jewish law.

According to Galatians 5:1-5:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."

So is she going to start eating kosher too? Keeping Shabbat?

Is her grandson going to be raised Jewish?

It's bad enough this woman sounds oblivious to her own faith, I ask, what was the rabbi thinking when he agreed to circumcise a gentile child?

Why didn't he say "No, I only circumcise Jewish babies?" Does this not cheapen the whole significance of what is supposed to be "an holy covenant?"

Or did he intentionally do this for bragging rights?

Galatians 6:13 says:

"For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh."

This whole thing is despicable. The parents for having gone through with this, the rabbi for doing it, and this ignorant woman for bragging about it on a social network like Facebook.

Don't get me wrong, I have disdain for anyone that mutilates the genitals of a healthy child, but this rabbi, if he is worth his own salt, and others like him, should know better than to be circumcising non-Jewish babies.

Why are they doing this?

If this is such a "cherished tradition," what is the reason for circumcising non-Jewish babies willy-nilly, to whom the circumcision will have no actual significance whatsoever?

What would they think if a Jewish couple took their child to be baptized at a Catholic church?

"I really DONT CARE!!!"

...Johnson says.

Well, she should. (Or maybe she does... why else would she be preempting hate mail?)

This is her grandson she's talking about, not to mention the implications of her own faith, not to mention the implications on his own faith when he is older. 

If she can't even get her own faith straight, how can any of her advice concerning other matters be taken seriously? 

I feel sorry for that child, who has been reduced to just a mere accessory.

I don't know which is more despicable, the fact that it is acceptable to forcibly use a body that is not your own for the expression of your faith, or the fact that people can be so oblivious that they commit actions that go against their own faith, and then publicly BRAG about it.

Others have tried making educational posts on her page with the verses quoted above and more, but apparently she is just deleting them and blocking those who contradict her, self-servingly leaving up only posts that praise and validate her. It's rather sad that there seems to be a hundreds of people who are as oblivious about Christianity as she is. Talk about the blind leading the blind. 

Dani Johnson doesn't seem to be interested in educating herself, just preserving her own religious fantasies and public image of enlightened and informative millionaire.

She is sadly mistaken if she thinks we will remain silent.

"Truth suppressed will find an avenue to be told."
Related Blog Post:

Holistic Circumcision: A Blatant Oxymoron

Related Link:

What the Bible Really Says About Routine Infant Circumcision

Why Christians need not be circumcised

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

In the latest plea for the Council of Europe to reject their resolution, MK Meir Sheetrit tries argue that resolution is "medically unjustified." This is certainly a different tune than what Shimon Peres sent to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, arguing that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, that it is a "fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition" that has been practiced by Jewish communities "for thousands of years."

The fact that Meir Sheetrit is choosing to argue "medical benefits" in lieu of "religious freedom" is interesting to say the least.


Is the argument for "religious freedom" so weak that it has to be propped up by a sudden interest in public health?

I will analyze excerpts of the Jerusalem Post article conveying this news:

"The committee said that circumcision is dangerous because 1.5 percent of children get infected," Sheetrit told The Jerualem Post Wednesday evening, "but infections can be taken care of."

...and completely unconscionable considering that they are caused by a needless operation on healthy, non-consenting children.

"Circumcised males are 60% less susceptible to HIV and it lowers the risk of penile and prostate cancer. Those are fatal diseases, as opposed to a passing infection."

Preventing HIV is not the reason Jews circumcise their children, is it?

Newborns are already at zero risk for sexually transmitted disease. Additionally, circumcision FAILS to prevent HIV, which is why even the most enthusiastic circumcision purporter in Africa cannot overstate the use of condoms enough.

Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say regarding penile cancer:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

80% of American males are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the ACS, 1 in 6 US men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. If circumcision is supposed to prevent prostate cancer, I'm afraid it is not very effective.

"Opponents of circumcision raised the claim that the child should have autonomy.

However, there are two other ethical arguments for circumcision.

The first is that of "community and divinity," which fits with freedom of religion arguments, Sheetrit told the committee, citing University of Chicago cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder."

Does this include communities who believe it a religious rite to circumcise their daughters?

"The second is the "best interests standard," cited by Dr. Caroline McGee Jones of the University of Texas Health Science Center, explaining that it is ethical for parents to circumcise their son if they believe it will benefit him and his well-being."

What if parents believe female circumcision will benefit their daughter and her well-being?

It must be asked, what other non-medical procedure are doctors obliged to perform on children at their parents request, because they, the parents, believe it is "beneficial?"

"According to Sheetrit, PACE members from several countries approached him after the meeting to say he changed their mind, but Rupperecht remained unconvinced."

HAH!

Sure they did.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

Does MK Meir Sheetrit intend to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west?

Is he seriously suggesting he knows more than the ombudsmen who signed the resolution?

Related Posts: 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

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

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

The Council of Europe has declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of non-consenting minors to be a human rights violation and the responses have been predictable, from accusations of anti-Semitism by leaders of Jewish groups, to the Israeli president Shimon Peres sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention. Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.

Perhaps the biggest response to the Council of Europe, however, has been for the Knesset to send an envoy of MKs to Europe, in order to ask their counterparts to sign a new draft resolution written by Israel; the Knesset intends to replace the Council of Europe resolution with their own.

Up until now, Europeans, and perhaps most everyone else, have refrained from questioning circumcision. Even today, leaders and politicians have a tendency to pussyfoot around the issue. The politically correct thing to do is to either join the chorus and sing the praises of the "medical benefits" of circumcision, the only recourse being to simply circumvent the issue and hope it goes away.

In a recent post, one can see that Israel has Europe by the thick and curlies. In the past, any discussion questioning the ethics of forcibly circumcising, healthy, non-consenting minors could be abruptly truncated by having a Jewish person stomp, pout, point their finger and say "anti-Semite." These actions still have a similar effect, as one can clearly see Jagland pandering to Israeli president Shimon Peres, after having received a personal letter directly from him.

All arguments questioning the circumcision of minors, how ever well-reasoned, are trumped by the "anti-Semite" trump card.

How far is this to continue?

When can Europeans, and the world in general, expect to freely discuss the ethics of forcibly circumcising healthy, non-consenting minors?

Or are Europeans and the rest of the world to continue turning a blind eye and refuse to call it the mutilation and basic human rights violation that it is, in order to avoid political assassination?