German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Tmutarakhan]

Having read the first few pages of this thread, I am astounded that normally liberal NSG is choosing religious tradition over individual rights.

The foreskin does not exist to serve any function

Yes it does! It protects a sensitive body part. Removing the foreskin is like removing the eyelids.

No: it does the exact opposite of "protecting" it. It endangers the penis, and does nothing positive.

[Norstal]

But you're living in our territory. Unless you somehow usurped our rights to our lands. Or have your own power plant powering your computer right now.

Since there was no coercion in the purchase of my property, I cannot be charged with usurpation.

What makes you think purchasing a house gives you the right to a piece of a country? Even private islands are still under the jurisdiction of whatever state is next to it.

I may not be a statist, but nothing prevents me from doing business with statists. I cannot be held liable for contracts that I did not sign. Therefore, there is no contract between myself and the State. I did, however, contract with the United States Federal gov't NOT to use my property as a front for terrorist activity, or activity that could be construed as being intended for terrorism. But that contract was between myself, the agencies representing the anti-terrorist interests of the federal gov't, and the agencies representing the housing and zoning authorities of the federal gov't and it had no stipulations regarding my endorsement of the State as my ward - merely my promise not to actively seek its destruction.

That's a red herring. The requirements of being a ward or a vassal, if you want to be dramatic, as set by you, is for the person to be:

1. Living in the territory belonging to someone else.
2. Financially dependent.

Whether you are or not a threat to the state is irrelevant here. Or at least, I see no relevance in what makes someone a ward or not.

[NMaa940]

Distruzio ideology isn't really anarchism, it's what happens to any country that looses it's government to internal practices, has a period of revolution by religious groups, and gets pushed back to the sea by invaders. It's called "the low point in the history of a country", or "an unfortunate occurrence". The House in such a period still isn't as arbitrary as you make it, since it actually has a living to make.

[NMaa940]

No: it does the exact opposite of "protecting" it. It endangers the penis, and does nothing positive.

Nothing whatever.

[Tmutarakhan]

Is there only 1 supreme and objective culture? Cultural universalism is... an interesting perspective to take.

A young boy might have their genitals mutilated in one culture for religious reasons, and might have their genitals mutilated in another culture for totally non-cultural reasons, such as the medical industry spreading misinformation in order to promote a procedure that makes them money.

Both of them are victims of genital mutilation, both deserved protection that neither got. Culture is not the issue.

"Mutilated" is such an absurd extremist term to use in this context, particularly given that it trivializes the actual instances of "mutilation" (rendering sexual pleasure impossible) which are done to females. It is like the rhetorical overkill of referring to any political dispute in which some people have died as "genocide".

[NMaa940]

"Mutilated" is such an absurd extremist term to use in this context, particularly given that it trivializes the actual instances of "mutilation" (rendering sexual pleasure impossible) which are done to females. It is like the rhetorical overkill of referring to any political dispute in which some people have died as "genocide".

We know that the mutilation is not as bad as that done to females.

[Molested Sock]

German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision that the Jewish community said trampled on parents' religious rights.

The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court added.

The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.
A few days after the operation, his parents took him to hospital as he was bleeding heavily. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm.

The doctor was acquitted by a lower court that judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.
The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous bodily harm but also ruled that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation around circumcision.

The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children.
"The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."
be illegal?

The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community.
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."

Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the ruling was "enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty."
"Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance," added Putzke.

The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males 15 or over is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.
Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.
The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.

Now this is just music to my ears, hey Germany who's awesome? YOUR awesome!

Awesome, that's mean!

[Distruzio]

Correct.

I'm not worried. It can't occur in anything except some transitory period. The closest you would have is some part of ancient Greece, who still demanded a code and responsibility of the House, and the strong House of any country becomes a Monarch. You're unrealistic. You have an ideology, but you don't care about reality.

I do have an ideology. I use it to view reality.

It isn't that I'm unrealistic, it's that I repudiate "practicality." I identify my ethical position and stand by it even when those who would demand I submit to practical requirements of the situation. Such people find it difficult to converse with someone who agrees with them, but refuses to accept that their shared position is, by fact of being shared, objectively correct and therefore legitimate to foist upon others who may not agree.

What you and those who support the German Courts decision are essentially saying is that b/c the State says something, and b/c you agree with it, that something is correct.

It isn't.

Not only is it incorrect, but it is absolutely immoral by any and all measures.

[Distruzio]

Since there was no coercion in the purchase of my property, I cannot be charged with usurpation.

What makes you think purchasing a house gives you the right to a piece of a country? Even private islands are still under the jurisdiction of whatever state is next to it.

I may not be a statist, but nothing prevents me from doing business with statists. I cannot be held liable for contracts that I did not sign. Therefore, there is no contract between myself and the State. I did, however, contract with the United States Federal gov't NOT to use my property as a front for terrorist activity, or activity that could be construed as being intended for terrorism. But that contract was between myself, the agencies representing the anti-terrorist interests of the federal gov't, and the agencies representing the housing and zoning authorities of the federal gov't and it had no stipulations regarding my endorsement of the State as my ward - merely my promise not to actively seek its destruction.

That's a red herring. The requirements of being a ward or a vassal, if you want to be dramatic, as set by you, is for the person to be:

1. Living in the territory belonging to someone else.
2. Financially dependent.

Whether you are or not a threat to the state is irrelevant here. Or at least, I see no relevance in what makes someone a ward or not.

My point was that the only contract with the State or representatives of the State that I've ever actually been a party to are those in which I promised not to actively seek its destruction. Therefore, the social contract you are implying exists between myself and the State - the wardship the State possess over me - does not exist. The State did not birth me. It is not my mother.

If I am a ward of the State, then it yet remains an illegitimate source of authority as it refuses to allow me to renegotiate the terms of my wardship. I am, to continue the metaphor from earlier, reduced to continuing the contentious period of teenaged angst perpetually - only there is no autonomy to be achieved. Therefore adolescence cannot be claimed to be a state of existence for the wards of the State. The wards are forever children and are only guaranteed the rights that the State deigns to recognize.

This is a plainly unrealistic perception of the relationship between State and individual. If it is considered realistic, then that alone further validates the claims by the anarchists that the State and its sycophants are the ultimate tyrant.

[NMaa940]

I do have an ideology. I use it to view reality.

You're supposed to do it the other way around.

It isn't that I'm unrealistic, it's that I repudiate "practicality."

We have nothing to worry about then.

Such people find it difficult to converse with someone who agrees with them, but refuses to accept that their shared position is, by fact of being shared, objectively correct and therefore legitimate to foist upon others who may not agree.

This is unreadable.

What you and those who support the German Courts decision are essentially saying is that b/c the State says something, and b/c you agree with it, that something is correct.

I am morally superior.

[NMaa940]

My point was that the only contract with the State or representatives of the State that I've ever actually been a party to are those in which I promised not to actively seek its destruction. Therefore, the social contract you are implying exists between myself and the State - the wardship the State possess over me - does not exist. The State did not birth me. It is not my mother.

Your lines of reasoning do not do anything for you. Even if you destroyed the state, it would not do anything for you, because society uses the state for organizational purposes.

If I am a ward of the State, then it yet remains an illegitimate source of authority as it refuses to allow me to renegotiate the terms of my wardship.

What does this even mean? That you want the freedom to make money without being taxed?

I am, to continue the metaphor from earlier, reduced to continuing the contentious period of teenaged angst perpetually - only there is no autonomy to be achieved.

There is no such thing as autonomy. Society means people need eachother. The State has parents take care of children because they are sometimes good enough at it compared to other options. Sometimes this is not the case and the State places the child under the care of someone else. This ends because they become able to take care of themselves - not because of some moral good. Criminals are also able to take care of themselves.

This is a plainly unrealistic perception of the relationship between Stat and individual.

Your way of thinking precludes any other relationship.

[The Dalekss]

I think i realize now why people still want this done to kids because of ''tradition'' . It's because no adult would willingly do it regardless of religion so this is the only way they can spread their primitive beliefs

[Distruzio]

My point was that the only contract with the State or representatives of the State that I've ever actually been a party to are those in which I promised not to actively seek its destruction. Therefore, the social contract you are implying exists between myself and the State - the wardship the State possess over me - does not exist. The State did not birth me. It is not my mother.

Your lines of reasoning do not do anything for you. Even if you destroyed the state, it would not do anything for you, because society uses the state for organizational purposes.

If I am a ward of the State, then it yet remains an illegitimate source of authority as it refuses to allow me to renegotiate the terms of my wardship.

What does this even mean? That you want the freedom to make money without being taxed?

I am, to continue the metaphor from earlier, reduced to continuing the contentious period of teenaged angst perpetually - only there is no autonomy to be achieved.

There is no such thing as autonomy. Society means people need eachother. The State has parents take care of children because they are sometimes good enough at it compared to other options. Sometimes this is not the case and the State places the child under the care of someone else. This ends because they become able to take care of themselves - not because of some moral good. Criminals are also able to take care of themselves.

This is a plainly unrealistic perception of the relationship between Stat and individual.

Your way of thinking precludes any other relationship.

My way of thinking precludes any coerced relationship.

[NMaa940]

My way of thinking precludes any coerced relationship.

All relationships are coerced. You have some need or desire. You are not God.

[Blakk Metal]

My way of thinking precludes any coerced relationship.

All relationships are coerced. You have some need or desire. You are not God.

Desire is not coercion.

[NMaa940]

Desire is not coercion.

It might as well be, it is a large part of what state activity focuses on.

[Page]

What makes you think purchasing a house gives you the right to a piece of a country? Even private islands are still under the jurisdiction of whatever state is next to it.


That's a red herring. The requirements of being a ward or a vassal, if you want to be dramatic, as set by you, is for the person to be:

1. Living in the territory belonging to someone else.
2. Financially dependent.

Whether you are or not a threat to the state is irrelevant here. Or at least, I see no relevance in what makes someone a ward or not.

My point was that the only contract with the State or representatives of the State that I've ever actually been a party to are those in which I promised not to actively seek its destruction. Therefore, the social contract you are implying exists between myself and the State - the wardship the State possess over me - does not exist. The State did not birth me. It is not my mother.

If I am a ward of the State, then it yet remains an illegitimate source of authority as it refuses to allow me to renegotiate the terms of my wardship. I am, to continue the metaphor from earlier, reduced to continuing the contentious period of teenaged angst perpetually - only there is no autonomy to be achieved. Therefore adolescence cannot be claimed to be a state of existence for the wards of the State. The wards are forever children and are only guaranteed the rights that the State deigns to recognize.

This is a plainly unrealistic perception of the relationship between State and individual. If it is considered realistic, then that alone further validates the claims by the anarchists that the State and its sycophants are the ultimate tyrant.

Your entire argument is dependent on us accepting every arbitrary premise and tenet of your ideology.

[Distruzio]

My point was that the only contract with the State or representatives of the State that I've ever actually been a party to are those in which I promised not to actively seek its destruction. Therefore, the social contract you are implying exists between myself and the State - the wardship the State possess over me - does not exist. The State did not birth me. It is not my mother.

If I am a ward of the State, then it yet remains an illegitimate source of authority as it refuses to allow me to renegotiate the terms of my wardship. I am, to continue the metaphor from earlier, reduced to continuing the contentious period of teenaged angst perpetually - only there is no autonomy to be achieved. Therefore adolescence cannot be claimed to be a state of existence for the wards of the State. The wards are forever children and are only guaranteed the rights that the State deigns to recognize.

This is a plainly unrealistic perception of the relationship between State and individual. If it is considered realistic, then that alone further validates the claims by the anarchists that the State and its sycophants are the ultimate tyrant.

Your entire argument is dependent on us accepting every arbitrary premise and tenet of your ideology.

Tu qoque.

[Gravlen]

Difficult words for you?

Nice strawmen.

Proof positive that you don't know what a "strawman" actually is.

Try "snark", if anything.

No, it's a good one.

Whoah! I'm psychic!

No, you're just wrong.

They most likely don't comment on that because it's not a case about the jewish faith. The courts considers the facts presented to them, and this is about a muslim family.

Ok, I'm sure that old school Muslims have similar beliefs as old school Jews on circumcision.

No. They don't.

It doesn't, actually, since it examines ignores the religious concerns of the parents, doesn't weighs them up against the interests of the child, and finds that the religious ignored concerns of the parents do not outweigh the right to religious freedom and bodily integrity of the child considered concerns. It's a real argument; feast your eyes, you might not be used to those.

Fixed for you, and remove the potshot. You might not be used to that.

You should read the article in the OP, because that proves you wrong. Again.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Well you've shown me what it is quite nicely thus far, so thank you teacher.

Wrong again, see above.

yes, and you may still get circumcised to your hearts content. You may not, however, force another individual to be permanently marked as a sign of your faith.

When the choice is between being ostracized from the community, or removing unnecessary foreskin, it should be up to the parents.

Naturally, I disagree. Subjecting children to unnecessary surgical procedures to placate "the community" is not something the parents should decide. On a related note, I would also be against parents forcing their homosexual children to pretend to be heterosexual lest be ostracized from the community, and I would be against parents forcing their pregnant child to carry to term against the express wishes of the child due to the religious objections of the parents and the community lest the child be ostracized from the community.

The baby is a tabula rasa, an individual whom should be free to decide for himself what religion he wants to adhere to when he's old enough. He may be educated in a certain faith, but he may not be permanently physically marked if he choses a different religion (or none at all) when he's older. That's his right, and the permanent physical mark would violate that right.

Tabula Rasa is an unproven theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tabula+rasa

We're talking about children, as per article 1 of the Convention.

But according to the source I provide, the Canadian Bar Association, children can give consent. So you just shot yourself in the foot.

I don't see how. I don't disagree that children can give consent - as they grow older. That's why the Convention grants children stronger rights of self-determination as they grow older. The thing is, it needs to be informed consent.

Or to quote the Canadian Bar Association, for whatever that's worth in this debate:

When are children capable? The law considers them capable if they understand the need for a medical treatment, what the treatment involves, and the benefits and risks if they get – or don’t get – the treatment.

A child which doesn't understand these things is incapable of giving their consent. A child which does understand, however, is capable of giving their consent.

Having protection from being permanently physically marked as a member of a particular faith is the default position. Until the child is old enough to make up his own informed opinion, he should be protected.

Preferably by the parents, from following a retarded opinion, and being ostracized from his community as a result.

Yes, the parents should protect the child. They fail to do so if they let the "community" pressure them into forcing the child to undergo surgery for religious purposes. That's when the government has to step in.

And since you can't violate the rights of the child, you cannot do anything until the child is old enough.

Except, since it's not abusive, it's not violating the rights of the child.

To repeat myself, it can be violating the rights of the child without being abusive. Circumcision is violating the religious rights of the child, as well as the right to bodily integrity, and thus should not be allowed until the child is old enough.

As this case have shown, you're wrong.

Since the case is in Germany, and I'm thankfully not subject to that idiotic court, I can go ahead and ignore the case.

You can. Unfortunately, as has been shown in this thread, many people value their own religious rights over the rights of the children, and many countries allow that to happen.

We no longer accept that people hide their sexuality out of fear of being ostracized from their community. We should not accept that the rights of a child is violated due to such a fear either.

I would expect that the parents protected the child, and with circumcision banned for young children, the community would most likely change after a relatively short period of time. And that would be a good thing, since violating the rights of children due to old traditions is a bad thing.

And no one is ever ostracized on the basis of their sexuality, right?

We no longer view it as acceptable when it happens. In fact, we loudly condem it, and we do what we can to support the people being subjected to it. Laws have been enacted to protect them as much as possible.

But for some reason, when some religious groups threaten to ostracize children for having parents that don't cave to their demands, we should be OK with it?

We have volunteers, who gave their consent, to be ostracized, in order to fight for human rights. That's how adults got the whole sexual freedoms thing - they first gave their consent to be discriminated against.

What? No. They stood up demanding their freedom and demanded not to be discriminated against. It's because they refused to consent to discrimination we have the sexual freedoms we have today.

[Gravlen]

I have a question for the people still hanging on to this thread after about 130 pages now...

Considering that this originally was about a muslim family, and that the child in question wasn't an infant:

- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child at any age? (Let's say up to 16-18 years old)

- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child despite the vocal protestations of the child?

[AETEN II]

Hey son, I know you were just born and all, but my religion dictates that we remove your pinkie fingers. Do you consent to that? OWAIT, you can't because you were just born! So I'll just do it anyway.

[Blakk Metal]

I have a question for the people still hanging on to this thread after about 130 pages now...

Considering that this originally was about a muslim family, and that the child in question wasn't an infant:

- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child at any age? (Let's say up to 16-18 years old)

- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child despite the vocal protestations of the child?

Yes.

[Milks Empire]

I have a question for the people still hanging on to this thread after about 130 pages now...
Considering that this originally was about a muslim family, and that the child in question wasn't an infant:
- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child at any age? (Let's say up to 16-18 years old)
- Would you be OK with parents deciding to circumcise their child despite the vocal protestations of the child?

No to both.

[Geilinor]

"Mutilated" is such an absurd extremist term to use in this context, particularly given that it trivializes the actual instances of "mutilation" (rendering sexual pleasure impossible) which are done to females. It is like the rhetorical overkill of referring to any political dispute in which some people have died as "genocide".

We know that the mutilation is not as bad as that done to females.

Male circumcision is nowhere near as bad, but I believe it is mutilation if the circumcision is coerced.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

We know that the mutilation is not as bad as that done to females.

Male circumcision is nowhere near as bad, but I believe it is mutilation if the circumcision is coerced.

Mutilation has no mens rea involved. Mutilation is a definite state. You can mutilate yourself without coercion and it's still mutilation to cut your foot in half.