Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 27, 2012
German Court: Ritual Circumcision Is A Criminal Act

Over the next days I’ll amuse myself reading editorials and op-eds and lunatic comments about the “outrageous” and “antisemitic” German court decision that gives a child’s right to physical inviolability a higher legally standing than its parents’ right to freedom of religion.

The District Court of Cologne decided that ritual circumcision for boys is a criminal act. This of course incenses those who set their personal religious believes above universal individual rights.

The court judged against a doctor who had performed the procedure, which led to complications, an a four year old boy. Cue the outrage:

The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was “an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination”.

The judgement was an “outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries,” added Graumann.

“This religious right is respected in every country in the world.”

Well Mr. Grauman, the right to burn witches was also once”a religious right respected in every country in the world”. Some even saw it as a religious duty. But opinions on human rights versus religious rights have, thankfully, changed over the centuries.

Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country’s large Jewish and Muslim communities.

And this judgement now criminalizes these child mutilation. That will of course not immediately end them but it is an important step towards that aim.

BTW: I find it funny how the Telegraph writes of “large Jewish and Muslim communities” in Germany when less than 200,000 Germans (0.25%) are of Jewish heritage while over 4 Million (5%) are of Muslim heritage.

The boy in the case the court judged was a Muslim child. Why then is there no Muslim voice in the Telegraph piece but only a quote from the speaker of the likudnik Central Committee of Jews?

Various religious groups in Germany, of all major faith, have condemned the judgement and have thereby proven their inherent backwardness. But reading through German online comments some 80% of the people agree with the court.

Like them I am delighted by this judgement. It shows that there still is some progress in the German society towards the implementation of basic universal rights.

Comments

The thing I dislike about this court ruling is that judges are overruling parental judgment in matters of how to rear their children. I strongly support the value of deferring to parental judgment, even when it’s not the judgment of the majority of parents. The classic legal example of this is homeschooling. Homeschooling is illegal in Germany. The illegality was challenged in the courts, and the courts upheld the law. The thing that perturbs me about this is the courts reasoning: The courts took the position that the plaintiffs in the case were the children, not their parents, and declared “children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents’ decision for home education because of their young age…. Schools represent society, and it is in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to educate does not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience…. [The ban on homeschooling promotes] the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_Germany
Forcing minorities to conform to majority practices is totalitarianism.
I’m circumcised myself and I strongly disagree with the idea that it’s “child mutilation” (though I’d be just as happy to have had a full dick).

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 27 2012 16:33 utc | 1

‘b’ says:

I am delighted by this judgement. It shows that there still is some progress in the German society towards the implementation of basic universal rights.

I say on the contrary, basic univeral rights include the right to rear your children the way you, in all your well informed good conscience, think they should be reared. And not forced to be reared the way some judge or some majoritarian community values think they should be reared.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 27 2012 16:37 utc | 2

there is still too much absolute power of parents …

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2012 16:55 utc | 3

As long as circumcision is done within a few days of birth I don’t think that it’s a big deal, but four years old seems like too long to wait.

Posted by: Kanzanian | Jun 27 2012 17:00 utc | 4

b, the ‘a’ is missing in the closing tag ‘‘ of the link to the Telegraph article

Posted by: claudio | Jun 27 2012 17:04 utc | 5

FYI if you’re using Chrome(ium) and this window is splayed across the right of your screen, switch to Firefox. Just noticed this.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 17:06 utc | 6

no use of talking about “universal rights” (except if you plan to bomb those who disagree with you)
society’s rights vs parental rights: it’s an arbitrary decision, both options have their legitimacy
every society will have to find a balance; and mistakes (in either direction) can have serious consequences
I’d say a referendum, on these issues, is the best way to go, not laws nor courts
another big problem is how harshly, if at all, do you punish those who don’t obey the law; for example, in Italy, abortion has never been really “legalized”, only “depenalized”: a kind of balancing act between principle and practice (or between opposing principles)

Posted by: claudio | Jun 27 2012 17:12 utc | 7

“The religious right is respected in every country of the world”
I am convinced that these shoot-the-moon pronouncements are deliberately pitched to induce psychosis in the hapless reader. A very sophisticated sort of literary gangsterism. It’s a long way from Deus le vult!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 17:16 utc | 8

Generally I’d say I welcome this decision – you can get a tattoo or change your sex or have your foreskin cut off when you’ve reached legal age to do so. On the other hand, this will have little to no effect on de facto circumcisions, but there’ll be a significant increase in little boys’ phimosis ;-).
I consider this decision a statement for secularism and against religious influence, albeit a very weak one. But in this regard, I agree.

Posted by: peter radiator | Jun 27 2012 17:29 utc | 9

Commenter ‘somebody’ at #3 says: “there is still too much absolute power of parents” over their children. When the law takes away the power from parents, the law is transferring that power to community values and political popularism, implemented by court judges.
Assuming the parents are well informed and acting in good conscience, when the law doesn’t defer to parental judgment, the law is forcing the parents to raise their children in ways that are contrary to the well informed good conscience judgment of the parents and forcing the parents to raise their children in conformance with majority values. This is contrary to first principles of freedom and tolerance.
In the country you live in at the moment, there are probably millions of parents who are rearing their children to believe in stuff that you believe is utter rubbish. The only civilized and respectful way to deal with that is to either accept it passively or to try to convince the parents to change their minds. To force the parents by law to raise their children according to your values would be barbarous. Or totalitarian.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 27 2012 17:34 utc | 10

I think that there should be all-inclusive religious studies (not worship) in all schools K-12, but that no one should be allowed into a church, mosque, or temple until they reach age 21; then they can choose freely based on their knowledge of the various belief systems.

Posted by: Watson | Jun 27 2012 18:12 utc | 11

i’m not against circumcision, but i do wish they would ban metzitzah b’peh here. there is no reason in the world a grown man should be sucking an infant’s penis. it is as morally abhorent as it is disease-spreading, and the only reason it exists at all is because people are bought off and intimidated. maybe if we put enough of these people in prison, then lesser buyoffs and intimidations will also cease.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jun 27 2012 18:17 utc | 12

@Parviziyi I strongly support the value of deferring to parental judgment,
But how far the right of parental judgement (which is also part of the German constitution) supposed to go? Where does it collide with the right of the child to physical inviolability?
Parents can freely teach and educate their children in their faith. The child, grown up, can later on freely change those believes. But parents are not allowed to make irreversible bodily changes to children. If the children later, as grown ups, want to do such, they are of course free to have them.
Many societies forbid female circumcision. Why should they allow male circumcision?
If the parents believe, for some religious reason, that cutting off the earlobes or noses of their children is the will of their god should the society allow them to do that?
If parents home-school their kid in a way that makes them practically dysfunctional for living within the larger society (like some Haredi Jews do) should we allow that? Or is it an infringement of the right of the child for a good integrated life?
There have to be some borders for parental rights as well as for the right to freedom of religion. Otherwise there will no room left for the right of the child as a human being. I recognize though that those borders may vary from society to society and may change over time.
In Germany the rights of the children are traditionally held quite high against parental rights. (Historical background to this are inheritance rights from the Middle Ages. While parents could decide that the first born son would solely inherit the family farm they owned they still had to give a minimum inheritance to all other children instead of just dumping them onto the rest of the society.)
@Claudio –I’d say a referendum, on these issues, is the best way to go, not laws nor courts
In Germany that very likely would confirm the court decision.

Posted by: b | Jun 27 2012 18:21 utc | 13

@ 2 “..,basic univeral rights include the right to rear your children the way you, in all your well informed good conscience, think they should be reared”
prove it

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 18:26 utc | 14

@4, not a big deal. No human should have his/her thing whittled without his/her consent. Goats, sheep? mebbe. But people? No. Especially people who have put away their tribal affectations.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 18:32 utc | 15

This may be “to much information” but I’m circumcised. Never really known why since I’m Catholic and born in Ireland (only around 1% of Irish Catholics are cut). When I asked my parents they just said that the doctor recommended it for health reasons. At the end of the day I don’t think it is that big a deal. If I had the choice now between remaining circumcised and having some magical surgery that would (un)circumcise me I would probably choose to keep it as is.
Some medical research has said that it leds to dulled sensitivity. Since I was cut as a baby I can’t compare, but I’ve never had problems or felt that it was lacking sensitivity. I’ve gone onto Circumcision forums before and suprised at the amount of 20 – 30 year old men choosing it for cosmetic reasons. Agree with Parviziyi that the term “Genital mutiliation” is an inaccurate phrase in male cases.
There is also the fact that it cuts the risk of things like HIV. Evidence in Africa shows that it cuts infection rates from 66% in uncircumised men to 38% in circumised men. Syphilis and Herpes also have a lower rate of infection in circumised men.
Finally in saying all that and despite that I don’t mind my own circumcision I do think the German courts decision was correct. Whatever the benefits or drawbacks of it, it should be up to each person to choose what to do with there own penis. I don’t see the problem in letting kids wait until they are 16 or 18 to make the choice themselves.
Of course none of this applies to Female Circumcision, which is rare but awful in comparison.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Jun 27 2012 18:42 utc | 16

My dick looks like Darth Vader. And I like it that way!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 18:46 utc | 17

‘b’ speaks of “…an infringement of the right of the child for a good integrated life,” and I add with emphasis that the Totalitarian State shall decide for your children what are the requirements for a “good integrated life”. You shall not decide this matter for your children because the State is wiser than you are about what is best for your chidren.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 27 2012 18:49 utc | 18

Bull shit! If your neigbours are outraged, watch out! You and your babies live a society of others. Go live on your own island, if you can affort it, and practice your bizarre necromancy.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 19:02 utc | 19

‘b’ says there have to be some limits on parental rights. I repeat that if the parents are well informed and acting in good conscience then any limits on parental judgment are impositions of Totalitarianism, Statism and Populism. Colm O’Toole mentioned Irish Republic. In that country the Gaelic language, a brain-dead language, is compulsory in the schools starting at age 7, justified as integrating everybody into the same culture; so every child gets “a good integrated life”. It’s an extreme and pathetic example of the wrongs of Statist impositions on parental judgment on education of their children.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 27 2012 19:06 utc | 20

Parviziyi, excellent comments.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Jun 27 2012 19:21 utc | 21

“excellent comments”
hmmm, is this the Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese…equivalent of hasbara? Aieeee! The world she is so complicate!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 19:27 utc | 22

i’m proud of my helmeted warrior and i’m glad my ma and pa mutilated me. my penis is a beautiful sight to behold, and my circumcision accentuated its already handsome looks. this legislation is a travesty. now jews and gentiles alike who want their male children to have handsome and proud penises will have to rely on two-bit, back-alley hucksters, or do it themselves, or leave the country. shame on germany for implementing yet another mechanism to drive all jews, a jew wannabes, from their borders. disgusting.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 27 2012 19:28 utc | 23

I’m glad I wasted a bazillion bucks on this worthless hulk. No buyers remorse here, no sirree!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 19:31 utc | 24

@23, so is it wenis-the-penis afterall?

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 19:34 utc | 25

“hmmm, is this the Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese…equivalent of hasbara? Aieeee! The world she is so complicate!”
is this “White Man-Christian, Only” aka E.U. club?

Posted by: neretva’43 | Jun 27 2012 19:58 utc | 26

@25 – grow up. we’re dealing with a mature topic here that deserves serious thought and concern, not sophomoric quips about genitalia. now, sit up straight, put your hand on heart, and repeat after me:

In my country there is problem,
And that problem is the Jew.
They take everybody’s money,
They never give it back.
Throw the Jew down the well,
So my country can be free.
You must grab him by his horns,
Then we have big party.
If you see the Jew coming,
You must be careful of his teeth.
You must grab him by his money,
And I tell you what to do…
Everybody!
Throw the Jew down the well
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have big party

like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo

Posted by: wenis | Jun 27 2012 20:02 utc | 27

@ Parv
There is a complicated history behind why Gaelic is taught in schools even though it is now an (almost) dead language. During British rule it was banned in schools one of many attempts at cultural imperialism. After all if you claim Ireland is part of England you won’t like it if the Irish are not speaking English. They tried it with alot of things like promoting Cricket as a sport (only for the Irish to invent a new sport in GAA football).
As one of the IRA hunger strikers wrote in the Maze Prison, in the “Long Kesh” documents smuggled out:

Destruction of the native culture is of paramount importance to the coloniser because as long as the oppressed people have their own separate culture and identity they will never have the need to accept the apparatus of foreign rule. The dilemma of the English when they first colonised Ireland clearly illustrates this for the structures of Irish and English society had little in common. Indeed the whole English concept of private property, tenant and landlord was totally alien to the Irish people and if the English were to successfully colonise and exploit Ireland they would have to supplant Irish communal ownership with a form of feudalism. That the English were thinking along these lines is illustrated in the words of Sir William Parsons, Master of the Court of Words, “We must change their course of government, apparel, manner of holding land, language and habit of life. It will otherwise be impossible to set them up in obedience to the laws and to the English Empire”.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/longkeshdocuments/culture-and-imperialism
You can see the same thing happening in Palestine as well as the “Creative Destruction” in Iraq like the looting of artifacts. Probably the reason the Palestinian resistance went from Secular PLO in the 1970’s and 1980’s into Islamic Resistance of Hamas. When your culture is being wiped out Religion becomes a vital part identity and culture.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Jun 27 2012 20:07 utc | 28

Sometimes it is better when things do not get regulated by courts. This is one of the cases. Of course the court is right, something irreversible is done, whilst children are incapable to decide for themselves. After the court ruling now doctors in Germany will shy from circumcision, more than before, so traditional Muslim and Jewish parents will turn to untrained or semitrained professionals if they cannot afford to go abroad.
So, in practice, it will be no help for any child. As the animal protection laws concerning halal or kosher meat do not help any animal, they get transported abroad.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2012 20:33 utc | 29

@28 What is happening in Palestine seems to me to be worse than happened in Ireland. If, say, the Irish had totally accepted English rule in, say, the 16th Century, Ireland would have become an integral part of the UK in the same way as Scotland. It would have continued to suffer loss of culture, and its inhabitants would not have had the same level of support as those of SE England, but they would have been allowed to live a reasonable if poor lives there. I’m not suggesting for a moment that this was morally acceptable but it is considerably better than what is being done to the Palestinians. Even if Palestinians completely surrendered, and I suspect even if they offered to become Jews, it would not be acceptable to the conqueror. I doubt, for instance, if they would be allowed to convert, and even if they did the conqueror would continue to steal their land and render them homeless.

Posted by: Pseud | Jun 27 2012 20:40 utc | 30

Circumcision is a topic I’m not touching with a 8″ pole.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 27 2012 20:56 utc | 31

@27, hmm, I was right, it is wenis el penis. Jews, I say untu youse: enjoy the present lack of pogroms and “sail into the mystic.”

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 21:02 utc | 32

@31 – you’re exaggerating by two inches, admit it. there’s nothing wrong with being average.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 27 2012 21:09 utc | 33

Hay, how did you know? Errhh.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 27 2012 21:17 utc | 34

Anyway, while I’m on the subject, I don’t think the Quran gives any instruction on circumcision, youd have to go all the way back to the Torah for that, and there it says to snip boychilds on the 8’th day after birth. If you can’t follow thru on the 8’th day, then the commandment falls away, because of the risk – at least in the olden days, the risk in the procedure – of infections and whatnot increase as the child becomes older. However, the initial idea of snipping, I think must have been to slit the string connecting the head to the shaft, not a full foreskin-ectomy as some jewish procedures are done. I myself am a sunni convert, but I’m not considering any self-mutilation, and I’d be happy to forego that tradition for my children if the laws in my country prohibited it. Though, I would feel safer if kids got circumcised by a doctor and not some backroom Mohel.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 27 2012 21:34 utc | 35

the first step to removing religious BS… about time, atheists deserve to strike back at the religious after hundreds of years of persecution (a lot longer than Jews…) we finally get to lock some religious people up!
now on a more serious note, with the current eduction systems, it might not be the right choice to let religion have a “special space” in laws and politics…
what I mean by that is that “religious freedom” is dangerous to the welfare of this planet.

Posted by: simon | Jun 27 2012 21:38 utc | 36

in my above comment, I might have sounded a bit rash… I am not for killing of religion using force or laws, I am for removing it from the “untouchable” category…
one has to remember why circumcision was first introduced into the first testament… it was due to the fact that it saved lives in an area of the world where water was scares, so washing was not a thing that was done often… this is also the case with the “kashrut laws” and the “Halal laws”, it made sense to salt animals… so that you would avoid blood-poisoning… now if we where to write these things today, it might include not eating fast-food on weekends… avoid eating to much salt… not eat anything fried in oil that has been used for over a week… etc…

Posted by: simon | Jun 27 2012 21:49 utc | 37

@36, Jesus, though I’m skeptical about the circumstances of his birth, tending to look at in the light of metaphor, said it best: “Render unto Caesar, what are Caesar’s; unto God, God’s.”

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 21:56 utc | 38

Well b, looks pretty bad in the comments. The right to mutilate one’s children is quite popular. Hacking off the most sensitive part of the male anatomy doesn’t seem to bother too many so far. What’s a few dead babies anyway?

Posted by: edwin | Jun 27 2012 22:20 utc | 39

If God is so powerful, why did he have to rest on the seventh day?
Apparently he’s still exhausted.

Posted by: Watson | Jun 27 2012 22:28 utc | 40

It was said above: “As long as circumcision is done within a few days of birth I don’t think that it’s a big deal”.
This comment is based on the now discredited notion that new born infants do not feel pain. This idea was common in medical circles as recently as 10 years back, but has been reversed by modern research.
In the US, our courts have ruled that life saving interventions are mandatory, such as transfusions, even if they violate the parents religious faith. Of course, after 18 anyone is free to avoid medical treatment.
The idea that circumcision protects against STDs is not true in the Western world. In Europe, there is no evidence for this. The effect is seen in Africa.
Just some miscellaneous points. I still don’t know if the German court was right about this one or not.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 27 2012 22:31 utc | 41

ToivoS – do you have any proof that circumcision protects against STD in Africa?

Posted by: edwin | Jun 27 2012 22:40 utc | 42

In Ireland , and presumably most civilised countries, the state insists on giving Blood transfusions to children where necessary even when this is against the religion/ customs /wishes of Jehovahas witnesses and any other crazies. Circumcision of boys and genital mutilation of girls should be the childs decision when they grow up.

Posted by: boindub | Jun 27 2012 22:48 utc | 43

Circumcision is no skin off my nose

Posted by: boindub | Jun 27 2012 22:49 utc | 44

@40, a better question: if God is so powerful(he smashes galaxies together!)why does God need puny, arrogant, vainglorious humans to stick up for him or her, them?

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 27 2012 23:16 utc | 45

“ToivoS – do you have any proof that circumcision protects against STD in Africa?”
Not me. But I do recall reading a summary of a study that was done there and made that conclusion at least with respect to HIV infections. As I also recall the European study that found no differences.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 27 2012 23:28 utc | 46

to all the people claim that mutilating males somehow protects them from gettinmg HIV:
It simply is not true – The US, where this barbarous practise is widespread, has far higher rates of HIV infection than Europe
THere is no absolutely health benefit to it at all – the notion that there is one is mere propaganda spread proponents of this stone age practice
I have sought out studies on genito-uniary-tract infections in males in the US and Europe and instead of finding that the US had lower rates of G-I tract infections (something one would expect if there were any health benefits to it) what I noticed was that in fact the US (again) had higher rates of G-I tract infections (though admittedly only marginally) than in Europe.
Therefore it obviously confers absolutley NO BENEFIT whatsoever, while carrying a great deal of risk
Message to Muslims/Jews/People that swallowed the ‘health benefits’ argument:
Try some soap and water occasionally if you’re that worried about the health of yer little todger 😉

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 0:14 utc | 47

A quote from this Guardian report is quite revealing:

Women’s rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were “in no way comparable”, said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act.

Unbelievable – identity politics taken to an absolutely hateful extent.
Is it any wonder than many people tend to label so-called feminists such as Frau Altpeter as ‘Men haters’? She gives Womens rights advocates a bad name

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 0:36 utc | 48

a comment from the Guardian report linked to above
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16856948
“The first origins of circumcision are lost in prehistory. It is a prehistoric, stone age, ritual.
Apart from some scattered examples of various tribes around the world who practice some form of ritual genital mutilation or alteration, the circumcision that is practised now in many societies was originally an African tribal phenomenon.
Circumcision was spread to the Middle East via Dynastic Egypt and thereafter via Judaism to some Christian sects and via Islam to the Muslim nations as a pre-existing tribal and national custom that had become conflated with religion. It is not even mentioned in the Koran.
One can surmise that at some point in the development of Patriarchy the ritual of circumcising boys at puberty was invented to mirror the bleeding of a girl at first menstruation that marks her physical transition from a child to a woman.
In other words it is an age stage ritual. Most societies celebrate or at least observe and note the first menstruation of a girl and there is usually a profound change in her social status.
There is no equivalent sudden natural biological sign in a boy. Puberty in the male is more gradual and is less strikingly marked than in the female. As it developed in traditional African societies where it was practised male circumcision was a publicly observed life stage ritual that marked the transition from boyhood to manhood (read Nelson Mandela’s account of this).
It seems that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) also arose in certain African tribal societies to associate the male age stage cutting ritual with a female genital cutting ritual at puberty and further to control female sexual behaviour, again under the development of Patriarchy.
That societies cling vigorously to this awful custom should not surprise us. If one checks out the harrowing documentaries on YouTube about the tortures that girls and young women “willingly” submit to to be accepted by their communities and to have their girl children accepted in their turn, it only serves to illustrate how much people need to be accepted by their society and how far they will go to achieve this.
So basically male circumcision is mostly a custom of some African Tribes, most African Muslims and most African Christians, then Middle Eastern, mostly Jewish and Christian and Muslim and then mostly Muslim nations outside the Middle East and Africa. Globally a minority of males are circumcised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
The HIV argument for circumcision is weak against low prevalence of HIV in most places and a poor excuse in Africa where Neocolonialism leading to underdevelopment (of the economy, health services, education, the status of women and everything else) and traditional Patriarchal values are the real issues.”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 0:44 utc | 49

Is the ruling binding for future cases or is it jurisprudence? Does this mean that circumcision is now outlawed?

Posted by: Sophia | Jun 28 2012 0:46 utc | 50

@ Hu Bris

to all the people claim that mutilating males somehow protects them from gettinmg HIV, It simply is not true

@Toivos

The idea that circumcision protects against STDs is not true in the Western world. In Europe, there is no evidence for this. The effect is seen in Africa.

As a circumsied guy I’ve spent a good bit of time researching this. Firstly on Toivos comment why would the effect be seen in Africa but not in Europe? Are circumsied males somehow more prone to HIV on the European landmass? But anyway I suppose its peer reviewed medical journals that you need. So here.
Firstly The Journal of American Medicine, the peer reviewed journal of the American Medical Association.

Three randomized trials in Africa demonstrated that adult male circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%, and the long-term follow-up of these study participants has shown that the protective efficacy of male circumcision increases with time from surgery. These findings are consistent with a large number of observational studies in Africa and in the United States that found male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men.

In addition to HIV, male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of other heterosexually acquired sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Two trials demonstrated that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring genital herpes by 28% to 34%, and the risk of developing genital ulceration by 47%.1 Additionally, the trials found that male circumcision reduces the risk of oncogenic high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) by 32% to 35%

Source: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104451#ref-jco15126-1
That AMA report is based on trials done in Rakai, Uganda between 2003 and follow ups on the control group in 2006. Details of the experiment are in the Lancet Journal below in Jan 2011.
Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961967-8/abstract
Finally the World Journal of Urology looked at the trials:

Level 1 evidence supports the concept that male circumcision substantially reduces the risk of HIV infection. Three major lines of evidence support this conclusion: biological data suggesting that this concept is plausible, data from observational studies supported by high-quality meta-analyses, and three randomized clinical trials supported by high-quality meta-analyses. The evidence from these biological studies, observational studies, randomized controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies is conclusive. The challenges to implementation of male circumcision as a public health measure in high-risk populations must now be faced.
Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5x2m107374r3734/

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Jun 28 2012 1:04 utc | 51

Colm asks: “why would the effect be seen in Africa but not in Europe?”
Good question but one can only conjecture on why. The studies you cite (thanks for digging those up) simply look at correlations. There is a second difference between the epidemiology of HIV infections in Africa compared to the US and Europe that may (or again may not) be relevant. In Africa the spread of HIV from women to men via vaginal intercourse is a major factor in the spread of the disease. In the Western world this mode of transmission is exceedingly rare. If I were actively researching this topic I would look for some co-factor present in Africa that contributes to HIV infectivity.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 28 2012 1:26 utc | 52

you’re not the only one that has looked into this – so portraying yourself as the local resident ‘expert’ is not going to win you any ‘Authority’ points
Regarding the spurious HIV prevention “logic”, from what I know Circumcised participants were recalled for HIV testing 6 weeks after the procedure, when full helaing in an adult male takes 8-12 weeks, thereby dissuading them from sexual activity.
So it’s no wonder there were lower infection rates.
(Also, it wasn’t clear whether their very participation in the trials raised their awareness of HIV prevention.)
But really you need to start asking about why the only studies on this come from Africa – If your claims had any validity then there would be higher HIV rates in Europe than in the US
And certainly there would be higher rates of G-I tract infections in Europe than in the US.
But in fact the opposite is true in both cases – therefore the suppossed ‘health benefits’ are nonsense

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:29 utc | 53

Colm O’Toole – If you believe that circumcision prevents 60% of AIDs I got a bridge that I can let you have for a song. Immediately, AIDS rates and Circumcision rates in first world countries cast extremely strong doubt on this. Secondly, AIDS rates in Africa between circumcised and non circumcised males are all over the map and do not show anything of the sort. There is a long history of justifications for circumcision with shoddy science and this is just another of them.

The three African RCTs reported a 50–60% reduction in female-to-male transmission of HIV over follow-up periods of 21–24 months. It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze these studies in depth. However, the world health community must examine the methodology and results of these studies much more carefully than it has done so far. Given that these studies are now being used to promote circumcision of millions of males, it is worth examining several other factors that might have influenced and skewed the results:

All three of the studies were halted early

The durations of the experiments were short

No long-term follow-up has been or can be done

A large number of participants were lost to follow-up

Many infections appear to be from nonsexual sources [9]
Other important confounding factors exist
Early termination
The early termination of the RCTs raises methodological problems that may have biased the results and the conclusions drawn from them. A systematic review of RCTs stopped early based on interim results found that treatment effects are often overestimated [10]. AIDS experts have expressed concern that the overall cases in the Auvert study were low enough to render the results at “serious risk of overestimation” [11].
There is no way to know if the short-term results of the trials would have continued. In the Kenya trial, the protective effect of circumcision seemed to disappear after 18 months. In the 18–24-month follow-up period, eight circumcised and nine uncircumcised males contracted HIV, an insignificant difference. The question of whether the interventive effect would have continued to be insignificant past 18 months can never be answered. Furthermore, since the control group participants were all offered circumcision at the termination of the RCTs, all possibility for long-term follow-up was eliminated. Lead time bias, in which circumcised men likely have fewer seroconversions in the first weeks owing to their inability to have sex in the post-operative period, is exaggerated in early termination studies.
Participant loss
The number of participants lost to follow-up is potentially problematic. Typically, attrition of a small portion of participants is not a cause for concern, but in these trials, the number lost was far greater than the number who contracted HIV. A total of 10,908 males were initially enrolled in the three clinical trials, 5497 in the control (uncircumcised) groups and 5411 in the intervention (circumcised) groups. By the end of the RCTs, a total of 64 circumcised and 141 uncircumcised males had contracted HIV. During the trials, a total of 703 participants, including similar numbers of circumcised and uncircumcised men, were lost to follow-up, their HIV status unknown. Depending on the HIV status of the males lost to follow-up, the statistical significance of the trial results could vary greatly [3–5].
Nonsexual transmission
Another problem in the RCTs is the large proportion of HIV infections that study participants contracted from nonsexual risks. According to the reported sexual behavior of the males in the Orange Farm trial, 23 of the 69 infections occurred in men who reported no unprotected sex during the observation interval. Similarly, in the Uganda trial, 16 of the 67 infections occurred in men who reported either no sex partners or 100% condom use. The trial in Kenya did not provide data on sexual exposures as related to HIV incidence. The proportion of nonsexual transmission in participants suggests that circumcision may not have the impact on the HIV crisis that is being promoted [9], and, indeed, could be contributing to the infections.
Conflicting results
Prior to the three RCTs, observational studies of HIV in relation to circumcision status showed conflicting results. This should caution the world health community to question the RCTs’ unanimous conclusions. Recent survey data of circumcised versus uncircumcised males in several African countries show considerable variation in HIV rates. In some African populations, HIV infection rates are lower for circumcised males, while other studies and reports have shown opposite results [8,12,105]. For example, the 2005 survey data for Rwanda show an HIV-infection rate of 3.8% in circumcised men and only 2.7% in uncircumcised men [106]. Data for Malawi in 2004 show a 13% HIV-infection rate in circumcised males, but a lower 9.5% infection rate in uncircumcised males [9,107]. Clearly, circumcision status is not the only or determining factor in HIV prevalence patterns.
Sex workers
Accounting for the number of HIV-infected commercial sex workers in a region, circumcision status appears to become an irrelevant factor [13]. African regions with prominent Muslim populations tend to have high rates of circumcision and low rates of prostitution. The latter may account for lower HIV-infection rates previously attributed to circumcision. The role of commercial sex workers and concurrent sexual networks, a much more plausible infection vector than the possession of a foreskin, has not been adequately taken into consideration in plans to stop the epidemic [13–15].
Lack of risk calculation
Another concern about the three RCTs is the failure of the study teams to report the results in a way that compared HIV incidence per sexual exposure between the circumcised and uncircumcised populations. Per-incident risk calculation is necessary in order for men to weigh potential expected benefits from the surgery, based on anticipated sexual behaviour, against the risks and costs of circumcision. Without this information, men cannot be said to have given fully informed consent [9].
Other unconsidered factors
Other factors and conditions were present in the three RCTs that are not representative of the real world, potentially influencing the study results. These include the following:

Condom use and safe-sex practices were repeatedly reinforced

Participants were provided 2 years of free medical care

Participants were paid to participate

Participants were solicited who wanted to be circumcised, and who may, therefore, not be representative of the general population

The trials were conducted in atypically sanitary and well-resourced settings that are unlikely to be replicated in mass African circumcision campaigns

Other problems include:
Circumcision could lead to increased HIV transmission
Circumcision costs & harms outweigh potential benefits
Unethical medical practice
More effective prevention strategies available
Vaccine analogy is misleading
Other countervailing data
http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 1:30 utc | 54

Here’s a list of HIV prevalence by country. If your claims had AN Y validity then why why is it that so many of the countries that routinely circumcise boys have a higher or identical incidence of HIV to those that do not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:30 utc | 55

for example : HIV rates in Israel where nearly every male is mutilated before the age of 13 and Ireland where few males are cut (you being one of the few exceptions I spose) are basically identical –

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:34 utc | 56

@ Colm O’T
Firstly on Toivos comment why would the effect be seen in Africa but not in Europe?
Exactly – that’s the question you should have asked yourself before replying –
There is no ‘effect’ in europe – none whatsoever –

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:39 utc | 57

and if mutilating boys at birth somehow prevents Genito-Uniary tract infections as all the proponents claim, then where would one expect to find higher rate of Genito-Uniary Tract infections: the US or Europe?
yet for some reason the (marginally) higher rates are found not in Europe but in the US
Ergo the ‘hygiene’ argument is proven false

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:43 utc | 58

BTW – the beauty/Face cream industry is built on the mutilation of the genitalia of infant males.
There a thought for ye, eh?
Wondering where your foreskin go to?
Well see that wrinkly old dear across the way?
It’s probably smeared all over her face 😉

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 1:46 utc | 59

There is an operation that can be performed on the newly born that would have dramatic health benefits. We could almost eliminate the largest form of cancer. All that would have to be done is to remove the breast buds from baby girls.

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 1:52 utc | 60

As someone who believes threatening kids with a made up hell is child abuse, I have a fairly strong anti stance to any practice involving causing pain to children.
I find the whole notion of taking your new born son and cutting off his foreskin ridiculous, to the point that it makes me wonder if parents that go to that extreme are actually fit to raise children. Now I know I am exaggerating, I am sure there are plenty of good parents out there who had their sons and daughters cut, but I have to ask myself if parents are prepared to chop bits of their kids coz some ancient text says you ought to, never even questioning the gruesome practice because everybody else in their religious extremist circle is doing it, then what other stunts are they gonna perform on their children to ensure they have the mindset of someone living 2000 years ago?
In today’s age, where hygiene shouldn’t be an issue any longer, I get the impression it is more a matter of branding, like marking one’s cattle with a red hot iron, ensuring the being carries a mark for life identifying the herd it belongs to. No escaping your heritage.
And to chime in on the discussion re parental wisdom overwriting societies norms, it cuts both ways.
If, like here in Australia, it is largely accepted within society that parents hurt their children, as in they are allowed to smack and beat their children “to teach them the right way”, tough love and all, then a parent should show the wisdom to not follow that norm.
If, like now in Germany, the broad majority of people are against slicing off skin of newborns, then a parent should show the wisdom to follow that rule.
What both if-scenarios have in common is that the parent recognises the unalienable right of their child to not be assaulted. That is parental wisdom. Just as I expect my children to not hurt me physically when in years down the track I am the one who is again frail and helpless, and they have the power to slap and cut around on me.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 28 2012 2:17 utc | 61

Hu bris and edwin, I don’t understand why you guys are trashing Colm. He has just provided some relevant information on questions raised here. The primary references he made are to studies in Africa. Without doubt the epidemiology of HIV infections in Africa are different from those in Europe and the US. This difference is scientifically interesting. If we knew why it is possible that we would have a much better handle on how to confront AIDS on a world scale.
Hu bris I am puzzled by your handle — does this reflect some life long trauma you experienced in your bris ceremony?

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 28 2012 2:31 utc | 62

Well, whether healthy or not, I am sure, well being isn’t first and foremost in mind of those who created this “question”. Most likely there is not benefit nor harm of those practice. I am talking about male circumcision.
One has to be naive and fool to put modicum of faith into German’s justice system and any racist justice system for that matter. In particular when it comes protection of certain communities in historical perspective and in the light of resurrection of fascism in nation-states of the West.
What we see is presenting cultural and religious custom/phenomenon as a “human right” and medical issue, civilizational as well. As if EU/US resolved all its problems regarding equality and fairness in socio-economic sphere, far from it so they are in position of lecturing others – quite contrary. Germany simply following example the rest of Western countries France, Holland, Denmark and their respective judgments in regards of very same minorities.
Christopher Hitchens is well and alive.
Achtung! What’s next on the list of R2P? Pork? Is German Court going to request from Iranians to wear jeans and tie?

Posted by: neretva’43 | Jun 28 2012 2:36 utc | 63

“Once you label me, you negate me.”
— Soren Kierkegaard

Posted by: neretva’43 | Jun 28 2012 2:51 utc | 64

@ Tovio – To answer your second q – “Nope”
And nobody is ‘trashing’ Colm –
“He has just provided some relevant information on questions raised here.”
As have I, as has edwin –
Why you describe it as ‘thrashing’ is a little mysterious.
“Without doubt the epidemiology of HIV infections in Africa are different from those in Europe and the US.”
indeed – hence the only useful comparisons would be between the US and Europe – and when the US and Europe are compared it turns out that the mostly circumcised Americans have higher rates of infection when compared to the mostly uncircumcised europeans.
“If we knew why it is possible that we would have a much better handle on how to confront AIDS on a world scale.”
Obviously there appear to be mnay factors that contribute to the spread of HIV – but not being circumscised does not appear to be one of them, given that there are higher rates of infection in the mostly circumcised US when compared to the generally uncircumcised europeans
ERGo it’s pretty obvious that being circumcised provide no protection at all, irrespective of whatevr ‘studies’ carried out in Africa are reporting

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 2:54 utc | 65

my brother and I are both snipped, and it wasn’t from a strong religious conviction in my Presbyterian parents, but more along the lines that Juan describes @61.
both of my boys would have been left naturally intact, but my oldest was born with a hypospadias (crooked dick) condition that required him going under the knife at 6 months, and needing skin to graft.
I think part of the trend of parents deciding against circumcision in the states has to do with more and more insurance companies refusing to pay for it.

Posted by: lizard | Jun 28 2012 2:55 utc | 66

One has to be naive and fool to put modicum of faith into German’s justice system and any racist justice system for that matter. In particular when it comes protection of certain communities in historical perspective and in the light of resurrection of fascism in nation-states of the West.
This appears to be an idiots way of hiding the fact that he/she is calling Germans ‘Jew haters’

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 2:56 utc | 67

The religious rights angle has no relevance in a debate about the welfare of children.
Along with others I have fought long and hard to try and keep laws regulating what a man or a woman may wear on their heads off the wish list of power crazed populist politicians, for the simple reason that there isn’t a single good scientific reason for those sorts of restrictions.
Those laws are based on playing into the xenophobic paranoia of nitwits and their weird xtian superstitions.
On the other hand there is a considerable amount of evidence accumulated over decades of study into the complications that arise from chopping a chunk off every infant boy’s dick. Evidence showing there are real risks associated with this superstitious attack upon younger males’ masculinity.
A circumcised penis will be between 0.5″ and 2.5″ inches shorter when angry (engorged) than the same dick left alone. This is because a substantial portion of the foreskin is used to provide extra covering when the penis extends on erection.
Now don’t click on these links if you’re squeamish:
scarring and deformity occurs in around 10% of all circumcisions.
Less frequent but far more devastating is galloping gangrene, or more properly, necrotising fasciitis.
In between those two are a plethora of surgical horrors – there is no such thing as safe surgery. For a while some ‘doctors’ (their description not mine) performed circumcision using a device known as a plastibell, many lawsuits followed here is photographic evidence from the lawsuits. (DON”T CLICK if the sight of tiny children in agony upsets your comfort level more than you consider OK)
I am circumcised and I have the normal strong attachment any male has for his sex organ. Even though I suffered no apparent complications from my parents’ outrageous and essentially fashion driven decision (post ww2, circumcision was trendy among white westerners) to cut a chunk off my dick, there is no way in the world I even considered doing this to my sons.
Does anyone truly believe that there wasn’t some sort of power trip thing going on among the religious and political elites of those cultures who decided to introduce a law compelling young males to have an unnecessary operation -one which semi-emasculated the younger males?
IMO It is up there with the xtian sects in amerika and elsewhere who chase all boys out of their community once the boys reach adolescence. Those scumbags claim some sort of superstition or religious authority to get rid of the young blokes when the only apparent outcome is that the young attractive women who remain in the community are forced into polygamous ‘marriages’ with men 50 years their senior.
I’m not inferring any such nefarious motives among those who claim circumcision as a religious right on this board. But I reckon they need to look at their belief system using the same healthy skepticism they display when analysing the motives of the amerikan empire.
Decisions that claim to be religious are in nearly all cases practical (for the rulers) reasons to enhance the leaders power.
The rule demanding catholic priests remain celibate comes to mind. One of the reasons this was introduced was to ensure that husbands didn’t feel threatened by the local witch doctor/priest or whatever u wanna call him, sticking his feet under the kitchen table as soon as hubby went off to work. From that position the voodoo man would gather gossip and intelligence. Combine that with the juicy tidbits garnered from confession, and the priest analysts; following knowledge is power principles, could keep control over just about every community in Ireland or Poland or anywhere else that the church worked hand in glove with the state’s elite.
Societies have a moral obligation to protect the weakest members. Four day old babies are powerless, if we don’t protect them we are being weak & sycophantic.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 28 2012 3:09 utc | 68

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html
“Foreskin fibroblasts are used to grow and cultivate new cells that are then used for a variety of purposes. From the fibroblasts new skin for burn victims can be grown, skin to cover diabetic ulcers, and controversially it is also used to make cosmetic creams and collagens. One foreskin can be used for decades to grow $100,000 worth of fibroblasts.
Mutilating infant boys is BIG Business – so you’ll forgive me if I’m very sceptical when I see studies only orginiating from Africa that support such mutilation , but no comparitive studies from the US vs Europe that support such mutilation
If there were any truth in the ‘hygeine/HIV” arguments then there would be plenty of studies demonstrating that Europeans have higher Genito-Urinary Infection rates and higher HIV infection rates – but there aren’t, are there?
Why Not?
It would be a (close to) Apples-to-Apples comparision – but for some reason the people pimping the ‘hygeine/HIV” argument have compeltely neglected to carry out these studies, or if they have carried them out these studies have not been widely publicised.
Now why would THAT be?
Could it be because the argument is bullshit?
Rather than going all the way to Africa, It would be much cheaper and easier to simply ring up the respective Health Ministries in Europe countries and the US and request Infection rates and then simply compare them. Far far easier than traipsing off to Africa to carry out these studies, no?
Could it be that there is so much money to be made from the continued mutilation of Infant boys that some people are prepared to go all the way to Africa to carry out dodgy studies that ‘prove’ something that a Multi-Billion-dollar Global industry WANTS them to ‘prove’?

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 3:17 utc | 69

on a number of occassions I apparently have typed “G-I tract” when what I meant of course was G-U (Genito-Urinary) tract.
As anyone can see, my typing sometimes gets rather scrambled –

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 3:26 utc | 70

This appears to be an idiots way of hiding the fact that he/she is calling Germans ‘Jew haters’
Not only Jews. You are certainly aware of Untermenschnations, aren’t you? No need to separate only them.
Being ‘Jew hater’ and German in same time is interesting phenomenon these days, when Germany delivering nuclear capable submarines to Israel, which are largely paid/financed by Germany. And I read yesterday that “vandals inscribe pro-Nazi graffiti at Israel’s Holocaust Museum”. The same ideology at work? That’s for sure. It appears that Herzl’s famous statement that ‘Anti-Semites will become our surest friends…’ find its full implementation in these times.
Fascism is coming in many flavors and colors dressed up as a “democracy” and “human rights” whether in Germany or Israel. The high priest of justice and national interests of those nation-states is story unto itself.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Jun 28 2012 3:51 utc | 71

fair enough – then I apologise for misunderstand your intention
It appears what you menat to say was that “All Germans are racist” rather than “All Germans are Anti-Semites”
It’s still a moronic statement to make but thanks for clarifying it anyway

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 3:56 utc | 72

@Parviziyi: “the Gaelic language, a brain-dead language”
Really – Irish is a brain-dead language? Please explain.

Posted by: J. Bradley | Jun 28 2012 4:23 utc | 73

#1
I agree with you. Ironically, its the masonic communist zionist ideology here being used against jews themselves, which is to replace parental sovereignty by that of the state. Its more govt control and interference into privacy and religious choice. Funny how women have the right to abort a fully human fetus, but now jews cant remove a bit of ceremonial flesh. This is an attack on “freedom of choice” too. What happened to “my body, my right”?
PS: extremely rare footage of a world leader in jerusalem- NOT kowtowing and bootlicking the zionists’ feet. makes one’s gut cringe to see another of the pharisee’s slaves at the wailing wall with a yamika, or fawning next to a flag with star of remphan on it.
Not here- WOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X3WM_x6ZDpM

Posted by: Jason Group | Jun 28 2012 9:54 utc | 74

We’re on the edge of WW3. Is this topic really necessary for global survival?

Posted by: marco | Jun 28 2012 10:00 utc | 75

Hu @ 70
Tnx, I meant to point that out

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 28 2012 10:02 utc | 76

both of my boys would have been left naturally intact, but my oldest was born with a hypospadias (crooked dick) condition that required him going under the knife at 6 months, and needing skin to graft.
There are reasons for circumcision. Replacing eyelids is another. Similarly, I remember reading about a person who had their big toe amputated to be re-sown on as a thumb.
The foreskin has several functions. It glides along the penile shaft making penetration easier. It helps keep vaginal lubrication inside the vagina. (This also helps make sex for women better). It helps keep sperm inside the vagina increasing chance of pregnancy. It helps protect against STDs. It contains the most sensitive portion of the male penis, and is important in orgasm. It protects the head of the penis and keeps it moist and sensitive. (It was the damage that was caused by circumcision to the head of the penis that was appealing to Dr. Kellogg – as well as the pain – in his crusade against masturbation.) Using the foreskin for reconstructive surgery may be quite reasonable, though it does have negative side effects, just like amputation of your big toe would have.
Hypospadias is actually something very different than “crooked penis”. It is an opening that is not at the tip of the penis, but is further down the shaft of the penis. I believe that there is a trend to think of this as part of the intersex continuum. I don’t know about current trends in medicine, but I do know that the foreskin was once used to repair this condition in the past. Because of the lack of understanding of the function of the foreskin by medical staff I don’t know if this was a reasonable trade off.
Interestingly, I think that the intersex community opposes routine sex assignment, and prefers to allow people to make up their own minds when they reach the age of majority. Circumcision is opposed by the Intersex community as part of enforced sex selection. Besides Intersex, there are other issues that are related to circumcision. They include the obvious Female Genital Mutilation, and the not quite so obvious Episiotomy, as well as more esoteric, or historic things like castration, breast ironing, foot binding, and the surprising uvulectomy.

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 11:12 utc | 77

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Try opium; it’s better for you.

Posted by: Watson | Jun 28 2012 11:49 utc | 78

it’s hyperbole to call circumcision mutilation. seriously, it’s over the top. don’t believe me. take a survey of all men who are circumcised and ask them if they think they were mutilated and if they regret having been circumcised at their parent’s behest? i’m sure someone, in rebuttal to that, will claim that the individuals surveyed, regardless of whether the sample is statistically representative, are brainwashed and therefore not in a position to make an impartial and objective assessment of their circumcision. however, the same argument can be made about anything the state may do on the so-called behalf of children. it’s just another form of indoctrination, but this time it’s administered by the cold, calculating, amoral machinery of the state, and not by the warm, loving, nurturing behest of the parents. i’ll take my chances with the latter, despite some exceptions, every time, and i think most people here would, if they were truly honest with themselves.
this legislation is spooky and creepy. it harkens back to germany’s infamous past, when it was the goal of the nazi party for the hitler youth to see hitler and the fatherland as its parents, thus relegating the former role of parent to that of a caretaker for the state. that tactic was so effective, hitler youth would rat out their parents without blinking an eye. nothing would make the german state happier, i’m sure, especially with the trying times that are fast approaching, and the draconian measures that are yet to come.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 28 2012 12:16 utc | 79

it’s hyperbole to call circumcision mutilation. seriously, it’s over the top. don’t believe me. take a survey of all men who are circumcised and ask them if they think they were mutilated and if they regret having been circumcised at their parent’s behest?
No it is not – and there are plenty of men that have been mutilated as children that describe it exactly as such.
Also there are many many women that have had FGM performed on them that were one to ask them if they think they were mutilated and if they regret having been circumcised at their parent’s behest would answer in the negaitve – does this then make FGM NOT ‘mutilation’? No of course it does not.
In fact FGM is usually performed by females – often at the behest of the victims themselves – cultural conditioning is quite a powerful force
See Wiki for instance – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Colonial_opposition

“Support for the practice also came from the women themselves. E. Mary Holding, a Methodist missionary in Meru, Kenya, wrote in 1942 that the circumcision ritual was an entirely female affair, organized by women’s councils known as kiama gia ntonye (“the council of entering”). The ritual not only saw the girls become women, but also allowed their mothers to become members of the council, a position of some authority.[67]
Similarly, prohibition strengthened tribal resistance to the British in the 1950s, and increased support for the Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960).[69] In 1956, under pressure from the British, the council of male elders (the Njuri Nchecke) in Meru, Kenya, announced a ban on clitoridectomy. Over two thousand girls—mostly teenagers but some as young as eight—were charged over the next three years with having circumcised each other with razor blades, a practice that came to be known as Ngaitana (“I will circumcise myself”), so-called because the girls claimed to have cut themselves to avoid naming their friends.[67]
Sylvia Tamale argues that this was done not only in defiance of the council’s cooperation with the colonial authorities, but also in protest against its interference with women’s decisions about their own rituals.[70][71] Thomas describes the episode as significant in the history of FGM because it made clear that its apparent victims were in fact its central actors.[67]”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 13:17 utc | 80

this legislation is spooky and creepy. it harkens back to germany’s infamous past, when it was the goal of the nazi party for the hitler youth to see hitler and the fatherland as its parents
That paragraph is a masterclass in Hyperbole –
It’s hilarious how these arguments are being trotted out now that young males are beginning to be offered the same protections from mutilation that females currently enjoy.
The sort of people claiming that this legeslation is ‘spooky and creepy’ are/were curiously silent when females were being offered protection from mutilation.
FGM is no less sacred in certain African societies – yet no one has had any problem legislating an outright ban on FGM.
But then the societal groups that practise FGM do not have the same sort of electoral/economic power in the West, which is to be found amongst the groups that practise ritual Male Genital Mutilation.
“it’s just another form of indoctrination”
And mutilating your male child is NOT a form of ‘indoctrination’?

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 13:24 utc | 81

The purpose of legislation during Nazi Germany was to isolate Jews, Roma, and others who were seen as undesirable – to make them not part of society. In its extreme, it forced public identification of those who were considered undesirable. For example – the yellow star of david.
This court ruling does not force public identification of anyone. Not only does it not force identification, it does not ban circumcision either. As an adult, you can do whatever you wish to your own body. Hitler tried very hard to control people – from birth to death. This court ruling does not seek to control children, rather it discusses where the line between the rights of children to their own body and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Not only that, circumcision is not considered to be necessary to be a male Jew in a number of synagogs. There is a network of Rabbis that perform an alternative to circumcision ceremony for newborn boys.
The Nazi Germany comparison is worse that stupid. It whitewashes Hitler’s legacy and indirectly supports historical revisionism. It does this for cheep political points on a topic that Judaism has struggled with for over 100 years and does not solidly support.

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 13:47 utc | 82

there is no commandment to practice Male Genital Mutilation in the Koran – http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html
it’s practice in Islam stems from the fact the Islam sprang from Judaism

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 14:28 utc | 83

Decades ago, browsing the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, I came across a letter from a doctor who said his most grateful patients are those whose circumcisions he had reversed (presumably at a much later age).
Apparently there is an increased sensitivity…

Posted by: lambent1 | Jun 28 2012 14:46 utc | 84

This is off-topic. At #62 ToivoS said: “Without doubt the epidemiology of HIV infections in Africa are different from those in Europe and the US. This difference is scientifically interesting.” HIV infection rates are much higher in Southern Africa than in West Africa or East Africa. In Southern Africa the HIV infection rates are significantly higher in the females than in the males (see page 5 @ ref). An impromptu hypothesis is that Southern African women practice anal sex a lot more commonly, which, if true, would certainly cause a lot higher percentage of them to become HIV carriers, in turn causing a higher percentage of the whole community to be carriers. I have not come across an expert denying or affirming this hypothesis. I have read a number of reports about HIV in Africa in which there is a discussion of sexual promiscuity levels, sometimes discussing it at length, and never a mention of the word “anal”. Why’s that? Everybody knows that injecting into the anal canal is like injecting into the bloodstream while injecting into the vaginal canal is a totally different story. The commonness of anal sex is a crucial parameter to know about. If you’ve come across good-quality evidence about the prevalence of hetero anal sex in Southern Africa, I’d appreciate the link. It’s a question I’ve wondered about. Sorry for going off-topic.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Jun 28 2012 15:36 utc | 85

Debs is dead | Jun 27, 2012 11:09:57 PM @ 68
Re: 0.5″ to 2.5″
Wiki doesn’t mention it, but it has a certain logic.
When I was born my parents believed that the foreskin, tonsils and adenoids should all be removed to avoid future health complications.
Having done a little research of my own since reading b’s post, it seems that most blokes, snipped or unsnipped, are happy with what their parents let them keep. To me, that’s the strongest possible argument AGAINST surgical tampering with an optimally designed organ. The best one could say about circumcision is that, in most cases, it doesn’t do any (or much) harm. If the people who perform the operation do it for money then they’re probably part of the problem.
I have a VERY low opinion of organised religion. Leaving aside all the crimes committed in the name of, and behind the veil of, religion over the aeons and continuing to this day, my biggest gripe is that one’s indoctrinated parents are scared into deciding one’s religion while one is too young to make an informed decision. That alone is a very solid argument for state interference to protect the children of feeble-minded parents from baseless, and pointless ritual mutilation.
If Germany already has laws forbidding female circumcision then this law is another step in the direction of a saner society. When they outlaw religious indoctrination of minors AND political indoctrination of everybody, Germany will become the world’s first truly civilised country …and the MSM will really have to pull its socks up (clean up its act).

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 28 2012 16:01 utc | 86

Parviziyi – I can’t really comment on the male/female rate of aids in Southern Africa. Here is a question: Does Southern Africa practice FGM? I would look at shared blood issues as well for the disparity.

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 16:47 utc | 87

@82 – shut the hell up, you bozo. i’m talking about the legislation, and policies, in force during the nazi era that undermined the parent as the sole guardian in a child’s upbringing, not specifically legislation aimed at jews, roma and other “undersirables.” this current legislation is in line with that, imo. the problem with the german mindset then, and apparently the german mindset now, is that it is so firm in its conviction, and considering its sordid history, that’s a dangerous combination.
hu bris, it’s insulting and inappropriate to conflate male circumcision with fgm (so many acronyms). you do the latter a significant disservice.
yes, hu bris, it is indoctrination and brain washing either way, but prefer to keep that at the parental level rather than abrogating it to the state, at large. otherwise, you wittingly, or unwittingly, create an environment for totalitarianism, and try getting that genie back in the bottle after you’ve help to loose it from its confines.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 28 2012 17:24 utc | 88

@84 – ever heard of the placebo effect? if they want ot believe it makes them more sensitive, then they will perceive themselves to be more sensitive.
anyhow, if this goes viral, i wonder of obama care will cover it?

Posted by: wenis | Jun 28 2012 17:27 utc | 89

@82 – shut the hell up, you bozo. i’m talking about the legislation, and policies, in force during the nazi era that undermined the parent as the sole guardian in a child’s upbringing,

Well then, it is not just Germany. There are numerous laws in numerous countries that undermine the parent as the sole guardian in a child’s upbringing. All child welfare laws/agencies would fit. Countries that revoke custody from Jehovah Witnesses who refuse to allow blood transfusions for life threatening diseases also fit the bill.
It looks like everyone is a Nazi but you.

Posted by: edwin | Jun 28 2012 17:29 utc | 90

@74, for the umpteenth time: Lenin, the father of Soviet-style communism, was dead set against Zionism. As for the Masons, the decoder ring they sent Vladimir Ilyich has been irretrievably lost; historians draw a blank.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 28 2012 17:44 utc | 91

It looks like everyone is a Nazi but you.
certainly the vast majority have the potential to be nazis if, and when, the zeitgeist presents itself. i wouldn’t conflate what the nazis did to undermine parental guardianship in favor of hitler and the nazi state with child welfare laws. the sentiment in creating child welfare laws doesn’t resemble the sentiment of the nazi party in undermining, and replacing, parental autonomy.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 28 2012 17:46 utc | 92

Whoa! I might have jumped the gun there. There’s some kind of grey area in my understanding. Goes like this: Lenin was a bolshevik who tussled with the soviets or vice versa or it’s not that at all? Whatever, he was no Zionist.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 28 2012 17:53 utc | 93

What an opinionated topic this turned out to be.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 28 2012 18:13 utc | 94

@92, you slay me! “The Zeitgeist presents itself.” Hello, I’m the Zeitgeist, perhaps you’ve seen me on Wikipedia, or in the syllabus of your Community College.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 28 2012 18:16 utc | 95

BTW, you guys knew in Egypt, 90% of women are circumcised? Yes, 90%!

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 28 2012 18:17 utc | 96

I ‘m fairly certain that Wenis’ comments are what b had in mind when he said
I’ll amuse myself reading editorials and op-eds and lunatic comments about the “outrageous” and “antisemitic” German court decision that gives a child’s right to physical inviolability a higher legally standing than its parents’ right to freedom of religion.
===========
hu bris, it’s insulting and inappropriate to conflate male circumcision with fgm (so many acronyms). you do the latter a significant disservice.
That comment for example is so ridiculous that it otherwise really requires no no further comment from me
and as for “shut the hell up, you bozo.”
again I reckon it oughta be slotted firmly into the ‘lunatic comments’ box

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 18:23 utc | 97

@84 – ever heard of the placebo effect? if they want ot believe it makes them more sensitive, then they will perceive themselves to be more sensitive.
pure nonsense – obviously you’ve never heard of Keratinisation – http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm#keratinization

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 18:26 utc | 98

@96 – yes, I’m aware of it, and it’s done to remove the parts of a women’s genitalia that provide her with pleasure during intercourse. to conflate that with circumcision of the male penis is absurd. i’m circumcised and i’m plenty sensitive and easily pleasured. it’s not the same thing, and shouldn’t be treated the same way. however, as abhorrent as i find the egyptian practice, i don’t support the state legislating against it. there should, and must, be more effective ways to combat such butchery.
what’s next for germany? if parents are caught speaking above a certain octave to their children, the state will take custody and the parent’s will be sterilized and forced to receive greek debt as punishment?
ruralito, you’re no zeitgeist, you’re just a simple spanish hick who’s wife beats him to within inches of his life every other day.

Posted by: wenis | Jun 28 2012 18:56 utc | 99

I’m still waiting to learn why Irish is a “brain-dead language”, Parviziyi.
Were you traumatized by the totalitarian state of Ireland and forced to learn Irish as a kid?

Posted by: J. Bradley | Jun 28 2012 19:00 utc | 100