Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right? You know, as one of many manifestations of Europe's then-swelling tide of virulent antisemitism?

Do you have evidence that the laws in, say, Sweden or Norway were motivated primarily (or at all) by antisemitism? I realize that the ones in Germany were probably so motivated, of course, and they were overturned after the occupation.

 

[Craig B]

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right? You know, as one of many manifestations of Europe's then-swelling tide of virulent antisemitism?

To clear this up: were all these animal welfare laws referred to decreed by Hitler for antisemitic purposes?

 

[gumboot]

Hate to break it to, but as far as I know, they do. Hence the reason that Jewish ritual circumcision is currently legal in all western countries. Did you not know that?

Actually, that is pretty heavily debated. It is not necessarily a requirement that circumcision be specifically banned for it to be illegal, as it may not in fact be legal under existing law. The debate exists in most countries primarily because legal precedent has not been set. There is much legal debate about this very issue in many, many western countries. Public hospitals in Australia, for example, have taken the view that circumcision is illegal, and will not perform them. In other countries, there have in recent years been legal movements towards testing the legal principal of circumcision, and the assumption that it's legal.

I think it's only a matter of time before case law establishes infant circumcision as illegal in western countries.

In any event, I wasn't referring to the specific instance of circumcision. Even were it explicitly legal in western countries, that wouldn't necessarily mean you were right, as it could be a legal anomaly. And indeed it is. What I was speaking of was the underlying principal, not this specific instance. It is your opinion that activities that don't "on balance" harm society should not be banned. It is the opinion of virtually every western country that activities which infringe on the rights of other individuals should be banned, whether they are "on balance" harmful to wider society or not.

While parents have a certain degree of control and authority over their children, the child is still recognised independently as a citizen of the state, and is protected by law against infringements to its legal rights - and that includes protection against infringement by its parents.

 

[angrysoba]

If Hitler and allies were the only ones who ever felt the need to build a motorway, I do think that I would stop for a second to ponder why.

Right. And Hitler and allies are not the only ones to ban ritual slaughter of various kinds. In fact, Norway did so before Hitler.

 

[gumboot]

What's interesting is to look at the legislation as pertains to female genital mutilation in most countries.

In my country, for example, carrying out female genital mutilation, or allowing another to carry it out will bring you a sentence of up to seven years and the law explicitly states:

4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not any medical or surgical procedure is performed on any person for the benefit of that person's physical or mental health, no account shall be taken of the effect on that person of any belief on the part of that person or any other person that the procedure is necessary or desirable as, or as part of, a cultural, religious, or other custom or practice.

I think it's only a matter of time before the law clarifies that male genital mutilation is in fact already illegal in western countries, as it constitutes a violation of the child's rights, and that those rights take preeminence over the parent's right to practice their culture or religion.

 

[colander]

Do you have evidence that the laws in, say, Sweden or Norway were motivated primarily (or at all) by antisemitism? I realize that the ones in Germany were probably so motivated, of course, and they were overturned after the occupation.

You're right. It was probably just a coincidence

 

[colander]

Right. And Hitler and allies are not the only ones to ban ritual slaughter of various kinds. In fact, Norway did so before Hitler.

Are you under the impression that Norway was some sort of enlightened antisemitism-free oasis in Europe? Got some bad news for you, then.

Prejudice against Jews became a focal point in the controversy about the legality of shechita, the Jewish practice of ritual slaughter. The issue had originally been raised in the 1890s, but a municipal ban on the practice in Oslo brought the matter to national attention.

Efforts to ban shechita put well-intended humane society activists in league with antisemitic individuals. In particular, Jonas Søhr, a senior police official, took a particular interest and eventually rose to the leadership of The Norwegian Federation for Animal Protection. The animal rights cause was used as a means to attack not just the method of slaughter, but also the community itself. Those opposing the ban included Fridtjof Nansen, but the division on the issue crossed party lines in all mainstream parties, except the Agrarian Party (today, the Centre Party), which was principled in its opposition to schechita.[25] Protests were raised in the Norwegian press, during the 1890s, against the practice of shechita, on the grounds that it was cruel to animals. The Jewish community responded to these objections by stating that the method was humane...

Germany wasn't any kind of outlier. Hell, they looked like one of the more egalitarian countries in Europe before the war. The truth is that up until a half a century ago, the whole damn continent was a sinkhole of antisemitism.

Oh, but not any more, though. Now everything is fine.

 

[gumboot]

Do you have evidence that the laws in, say, Sweden or Norway were motivated primarily (or at all) by antisemitism? I realize that the ones in Germany were probably so motivated, of course, and they were overturned after the occupation.

This. While it's true that Hitler banned ritual slaughter in Germany and introduced the restriction in every occupied country, the Allied Military Authority repealed all of these laws under special order at the end of the war. Thus Hitler's stance on ritual slaughter is totally irrelevant.

 

[gumboot]

You're right. It was probably just a coincidence

You do realise that Finland (which is the only Nordic country which introduced restrictions on animal slaughter about the same time that Hitler was coming to power) law doesn't actually prohibit ritual slaughter, right?

 

[Craig B]

You're right. It was probably just a coincidence

Indeed. What explicitly antisemitic laws exist in Norway or Sweden? Nordic laws which inhibit ritual slaughter or circumcision, where they exist, have been adopted as part of a programme of protecting the wellbeing of humans and other creatures, not a campaign of harassing Jews.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I previously made the point that water sprinkling of children and cutting bits off children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, the imposition of sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, on children, is strongly prohibited by law. It is permitted to mature persons on their own account, as body cutting and piercing also rightly are. Find another analogy.

Your intentional density is noted.

It is possible to write laws so that the intention to descriminate is not in the letter but in the spirit. If you legally ban inter-racial marriage (resp. sodomy), you disadvantage everyone equally by the letter of the law insofar as no-one can legally practice inter-racial marriage (resp. sodomy). However, the spirit of the law really only diadvantages those who want to engage in the proscribed behavior. In particular, it is possible to define sodomy in such a way that all same-sex sexual contact becomes illegal while leaving opposite-sex sexual contact legal, albeit severly restricted.

It is the above denial of fundamental rights to historically discriminated against groups without due process of law (either substantively or procedurally) that, in US jurisprudence, renders anti-miscegenation laws and anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. Moreover, if the assertor of the law, which, in the above examples, is the State, wishes to continue to assert the statute with the force of law, the statute must withstand strict scrutiny meaning that:

1. the State must have a compelling interest in restrict the fundamental rights of a suspect class
2. the statute must be narrowly tailored pursuant to the State's compulsion
3. the State must use the least restrictive means to effect its interests

None of the above are met by a general proscription against circumcision that:

• arguably changes nothing for the ethno-religious majority in Nordic countries with respect to ethno-religious identification
• dispropotinately restricts the ability of Jews and Muslims, two historically discirminated against minorities in Europe, to engage ethno-religious identification, a right which is guaranteed to the ethno-religious majorities

Anyone is free to dispute the elements of strict scrutiny or dismiss them as not relevant to European jurisprudence. However, the wholesale denial of (2), (3), [A], and only legimates the idea that the primary, if not exclusive, motivation for anti-circumcision is anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as such a denial refuses to acknowledge the fundamental problems with heavy-handed, indiscriminate, and specific application of the laws on the land to ethno-religious minorities.

 

[Rat]

I think it's only a matter of time before the law clarifies that male genital mutilation is in fact already illegal in western countries, as it constitutes a violation of the child's rights, and that those rights take preeminence over the parent's right to practice their culture or religion.

I agree, but I don't see it happening in most or Europe or North America in my lifetime.

To go back to ritual slaughter to compare, I listened to a terrible programme on Radio 4 recently (it's called Beyond Belief, and it is) that was specifically about ritual slaughter. One of the chaps defending it explicitly said, several times, that ritual slaughter (I think shechita, but I'm not sure) fulfils all the requirements of European law on humane slaughter. I have never heard someone so brazenly make such a specious statement. I mention it because I am certain that similar defences will be made with regards to circumcision. Similar rather than identical, because no specific exemptions have been made there that I'm aware of.

 

[Craig B]

I shall now make the point that having sex with children and circumcising children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, Jewish ritual circumcision of infants is not currently prohibited by law. As with ear piercings and orthodontic braces, parents are given the authority to make decisions regarding minor cosmetic bodily alterations on behalf of their own children. Find another analogy.

If ritual circumcision is a "minor cosmetic bodily alteration" then neither the human legislators nor God should give a toss whether it is banned or not. Find another description.

 

[angrysoba]

Are you under the impression that Norway was some sort of enlightened antisemitism-free oasis in Europe?

No. But you said "Hitler and allies were the only ones who ever felt the need to build a motorway".

Got some bad news for you, then.

Yes, I get the fact that anti-semites are happy to sign up to anything that gives Jews a hard time, but that doesn't mean that the law itself, which is still in place, is there for anti-semitic reasons. Or do you think that Norway is institutionally anti-semitic?

Germany wasn't any kind of outlier. Hell, they looked like one of the more egalitarian countries in Europe before the war. The truth is that up until a half a century ago, the whole damn continent was a sinkhole of antisemitism.

Oh, but not any more, though. Now everything is fine.

Indeed, anti-semitism was rife in France, Russia, Poland, even in England. But are you suggesting that there can be no reason for bans on say circumcision other than anti-semitic reasons?

 

[Rat]

It is possible to write laws so that the intention to descriminate is not in the letter but in the spirit. If you legally ban inter-racial marriage (resp. sodomy), you disadvantage everyone equally by the letter of the law insofar as no-one can legally practice inter-racial marriage (resp. sodomy). However, the spirit of the law really only diadvantages those who want to engage in the proscribed behavior. In particular, it is possible to define sodomy in such a way that all same-sex sexual contact becomes illegal while leaving opposite-sex sexual contact legal, albeit severly restricted.

It is possible to do so, yes. I would agree that banning sodomy, where it has been so banned, has been done with the intention of affecting homosexuals, and has generally only been prosecuted as such. I do not believe that the laws that we're discussing have been written with that intention, albeit that they have had to consider those implications. That is the problem in a nutshell. It would be banned without hesitation were it not for the problem of those religious groups. Those religious groups are the only reason that it's being discussed and debated, rather than just done.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yah, but the overarching and ethusiastic denial that the affirmation of the free exercise of religion has any valid place in the socio-legal discourse on circumcision speaks volumes as to the deniers respect for minority religious rights.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If you want us to stop making comparisons to cosmetic things, best stop trying to make comparisons to orthodontia, which you are portraying as a cosmetic thing, to justify circumcision.

The forays into US jurisprudence are debatable and off topic. But let's try some more!

§116. Female genital mutilation
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—
(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.

(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §645(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–709.)

Effective Date
Section 645(c) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (b) [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996].”

Congressional Findings
Section 645(a) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The Congress finds that—
“(1) the practice of female genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
“(2) the practice of female genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the women involved;
“(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
“(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
“(5) the practice of female genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
“(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.”

Linky.

Looks good to me.

And I have been comparing things to genital nicking.

The Norwegian and Swedish laws seem to draw the line at "permanent changes", but my Google Translate might be rusty.

Heck, I'll throw in NZ, because it has just as much bearing as the US here:

(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this
section, whether or not any medical or surgical procedure is performed
on any person for the benefit of that person's physical or mental
health, no account shall be taken of the effect on that person of any
belief on the part of that person or any other person that the procedure
is necessary or desirable as, or as part of, a cultural, religious, or
other custom or practice.

Linky.

 

[Rat]

Yah, but the overarching and enthusiastic denial that the affirmation of the free exercise of religion has any valid place in the socio-legal discourse on circumcision speaks volumes as to the denier's respect for minority religious rights.

A valid place in the discourse on circumcision of oneself, certainly. On that of a child, less so.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ninja'd by gumboot!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yah, but the overarching and ethusiastic denial that the affirmation of the free exercise of religion has any valid place in the socio-legal discourse on circumcision speaks volumes as to the deniers respect for minority religious rights.

I think it is pretty evident that the other side does think it has a valid place, just not to your benefit .