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

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

"Religious freedom?" "Parental choice?" or "Child Abuse?"

A ban on male infant circumcision is set to be put on the ballot for the November election in San Francisco, and those against it allege that the ban would infringe on "parental rights" and "religious freedom."

I wrote a blog post on this subject earlier, here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html

Opponents of the ban bemoan that the government is "taking over our lives," citing the latest crackdown on McDonald's happy meals as an example.

I've already agreed earlier that the happy meal law is ridiculous, but when it comes to permanent body modification, is government intervention really all that outlandish?

In the post just before this one, I wrote my thoughts on a recent incident, where a mother loses custody of her daughter for injecting her with botox, so that she would fare better in beauty pageants.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html

This was just one example of how the state can and does step in.

But now, I'd like to bring attention to the state of Oregon, where, much to the chagrin of a certain religious group, a law that would infringe on "parental choice" and "religious freedoms" is being instituted swimmingly.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2011/05/faith_healing_finally_oregon_l.html

The state of Oregon has been the longtime home of the "Followers of Christ," an Oregon City-based, Christian sect whose members believe solely in prayer to treat sickness, in lieu of medicine. Optometry or dental care is sometimes exempt, but seeking medical help for one's self or one's sick children is prohibited. As a result, the church has a high child mortality rate, and a long history of children dying from treatable conditions.

Up until now, Oregon had maintained a two-track legal system that granted special legal privileges to parents with these religious beliefs. Using religion as a defense, it was possible for parents of said beliefs to let their children die of medical neglect, and they would automatically receive special treatment and lighter sentences by using religion as a defense.

(Sounds awfully familiar to the New York mohel/herpes case...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

For a time, many states granted immunity to parents who insisted on treating their sick children through prayer alone. However, many of them abandoned this approach, having realized that it was enabling child abuse in the name of the protection of "religious freedom."

Oregon has remained one of the few states to automatically shield faith-healing parents from prosecution for homicide or first-degree manslaughter. Said parents were also exempt from mandatory sentences under state Measure 11.

That is, until now.

After nearly 50 years of looking the other way, Oregon is finally changing its laws. As they stand, Oregon's current laws violate basic equal protection laws, requiring most parents in Oregon to meet the minimum standards of parenthood, while creating exemption for only a chosen few in the name of "religious freedom." The consequences of allowing this double-standard to continue has resulted in the deaths of many children.

Since 2009, several parents in the Followers of Christ church have been prosecuted or sanctioned for failing to provide their children with medical care. One child was a 15-month-old girl who died of untreated pneumonia and an infection. Another was a teenage boy who slowly died of an untreated urinary blockage. Another child suffered a massive untreated growth that disfigured her face and compromised her vision. It has taken these high-profile cases to finally force the Oregon Legislature to change.

Child advocate Rita Swan regretfully tells the story of her son who died in 1977, after she and her husband withheld necessary medical care, under the direction of their church. She explains why a single legal standard is not just a moral imperative for Oregon, but also a clearer guideline for people in religious sects.

"It would relieve parents of the moral tension of violating laws of the church," she says. "It would clarify what society expects of them."

Strangely enough, Jewish film maker Elias Ungar-Sargon makes a similar argument:
http://forward.com/articles/137577/

The Oregon House has unanimously approved the faith-healing bill, and the Senate is expected to approve it this week (article published on May 15, 2011), after adding an "emergency clause" to speed its enactment. The sudden urgency, after so many years of deference and inaction, is a strange, bittersweet relief to some.

(I'd like to bet a dime to a dollar that the double-standard with male and female circumcision will persist though...)

So here you have a law that, for all intents and purposes, is going to infringe on the "religious freedoms" and "parental rights" of many.

Do objectors to the San Francisco Circumcision Ban voice their rage here?

Where do you draw the line?

How far should parents be allowed to go before we call child protective services on them?

When does an action cross the line from "religious freedom" and "parental rights" over to "child abuse?"

In treating male circumcision as a "religious freedom" and a "parental right," but banning any and every form of female genital cutting without religious exeption, aren't we maintaining a two-track legal system that grants special legal privileges to parents with a specific set of religious beliefs?

Why have we decided that only male circumcision should be defended in the name of "parental choice" and "religious freedom?"

It must be noted that circumcision can and often does result in complications, which include partial or full penile ablation (Google David Reimer for a famous case), infection, and yes, even death.

In a previous post I talk about circumcision complications which include death...:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/04/circumcision-kills.html

...as well as a death that happened recently:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/circumcision-death-another-one-bites.html

Yes, I'm sure that all surgeries have risks, but is putting a healthy, non-consenting child elective, cosmetic non-medical surgery justified?

The bottom line is always this: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgeries in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents of said individuals any kind of "choice?" Is it even legal to be stoking a parents' sense of entitlement for a procedure that there isn't a medical indication for?