[DRAFT] Repeal: "Permit Male Circumcision"

[Haymarket Riot]

Target: GA#141
Co-author: Elyreia

The World Assembly,

Believing that mutilation for a religious, or indeed any, purpose is intolerable,

Affirming that circumcision when performed without either consent or medical necessity is mutilation,

Rebuking GA#141’s characterization of circumcision as merely a medical procedure,

Horrified that GA#141 enshrines gender inequality into law by permitting male genital mutilation while female genital mutilation is rightfully outlawed under GA#114,

Hopeful that this dark chapter of restricting bodily autonomy is now over,

Hereby repeals “Permit Male Circumcision”.

[Bananaistan]

Horrified that GA#141 enshrines gender inequality into law by permitting male genital mutilation while female genital mutilation is rightfully outlawed under GA#114,

"Only an absolutist nut-job would paint male circumcision as comparable to fgm. Completely and utterly opposed."

[Tinhampton]

Vehement support. Wherever you stand on circumcision and its legality, you have to admit that GA#141 is pretty fucking useless at actually doing its job:

GA#141 "Permit[s] Male Circumcision" inasmuch as it declares the practice "a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status." However, there are no protections explicitly offered to recipients of medical procedures, by virtue of their receiving medical procedures. Most references to medical procedures in active resolutions are to declare something or other an MP.
Article II of GA#30 merely says that "All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available."
GA#114 refers to "any legal right that parents or guardians may have to consent to medical procedures on behalf of an individual" - but only to the extent that it declares that this right does not apply to FGM.
GA#487 says that anybody who is "undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received" may be forced into receiving such medications without their consent.

[Ostrovskiy]

Full support

[Elyreia]

Horrified that GA#141 enshrines gender inequality into law by permitting male genital mutilation while female genital mutilation is rightfully outlawed under GA#114,

"Only an absolutist nut-job would paint male circumcision as comparable to fgm. Completely and utterly opposed."

And yet it does permanent lasting nerve damage in many cases, and is often not a medically necessary procedure that is performed for either cultural or religious reasons, and without the consent of whom the operation is performed upon.

So why is this legalized but FGM has no such exemptions for cultural or religious reasons? One would hope it's oversight and that FGM bans are correct, which means the next logical extension is full bans on all genital mutilation against youths and newborns against their consent for any religious or cultural reasons outside of medical necessity.

But then again, maybe I'm just a nut job who is wrong, and the idea of consent only extends to females-at-birth and males-at-birth just have to suck it up and man up, I guess.

[The Ice States]

"As circumcision is forbidden by decree of Klyprer, we have no objections to this repeal in principle. That said, we question if a ban on circumcision without consent would remain possible under the target; if it is a medical procedure a ban on performing it without consent can be enacted in the same manner that a ban on abortion or euthanasia without consent is consistent with those being medical procedures."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"As circumcision is forbidden by decree of Klyprer, we have no objections to this repeal in principle. That said, we question if a ban on circumcision without consent would remain possible under the target; if it is a medical procedure a ban on performing it without consent can be enacted in the same manner that a ban on abortion or euthanasia without consent is consistent with those being medical procedures."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The target legislation explicitly permits male circumcision in cases where it is not medically necessary. This glaring infringement on bodily autonomy needs to be rebuked for equality and equity of all who were males-at-birth, just as it is for those who were females-at-birth. If someone would like to pass a law to legalize such where it is exclusively for medical necessity, I would be the first to sign on to approve such a legislation; giving religious communities the impunity to perform them unnecessarily, en masse, simply because they want to is disgusting and the exact reason why FGM was banned. I fail to see why circumcision gets a pass. As someone who was born a male, this affects me regardless of the fact I no longer consider myself male."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

[The Ice States]

"As circumcision is forbidden by decree of Klyprer, we have no objections to this repeal in principle. That said, we question if a ban on circumcision without consent would remain possible under the target; if it is a medical procedure a ban on performing it without consent can be enacted in the same manner that a ban on abortion or euthanasia without consent is consistent with those being medical procedures."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The target legislation explicitly permits male circumcision in cases where it is not medically necessary. This glaring infringement on bodily autonomy needs to be rebuked for equality and equity of all who were males-at-birth, just as it is for those who were females-at-birth. If someone would like to pass a law to legalize such where it is exclusively for medical necessity, I would be the first to sign on to approve such a legislation; giving religious communities the impunity to perform them unnecessarily, en masse, simply because they want to is disgusting and the exact reason why FGM was banned. I fail to see why circumcision gets a pass. As someone who was born a male, this affects me regardless of the fact I no longer consider myself male."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"Ambassador, the target explicitly enshrines member nations' 'authority to regulate the procedure' in the same clause in question; such regulations could include requiring consent regardless of the person's age, a similar approach, although slightly less restrictive, to what is taken domestically in the Ice States. The most convincing angle for a repeal on these grounds are that the exception only applies to member nations and not the World Assembly, meaning that a World Assembly-wide prohibition on circumcision without consent would be impossible. We would recommend focusing the repeal on this issue."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"The target legislation explicitly permits male circumcision in cases where it is not medically necessary. This glaring infringement on bodily autonomy needs to be rebuked for equality and equity of all who were males-at-birth, just as it is for those who were females-at-birth. If someone would like to pass a law to legalize such where it is exclusively for medical necessity, I would be the first to sign on to approve such a legislation; giving religious communities the impunity to perform them unnecessarily, en masse, simply because they want to is disgusting and the exact reason why FGM was banned. I fail to see why circumcision gets a pass. As someone who was born a male, this affects me regardless of the fact I no longer consider myself male."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"Ambassador, the target explicitly enshrines member nations' 'authority to regulate the procedure' in the same clause in question; such regulations could include requiring consent regardless of the person's age, a similar approach, although slightly less restrictive, to what is taken domestically in the Ice States. The most convincing angle for a repeal on these grounds are that the exception only applies to member nations and not the World Assembly, meaning that a World Assembly-wide prohibition on circumcision without consent would be impossible. We would recommend focusing the repeal on this issue."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"And yet if a resolution had been proposed in the same vein and verbiage for FGM, the author would have been crucified by this community. The legislation declares male circumcision to be a medical procedure and legally obligated to permit male circumcision in religious instances ; would we accept FGM had it been defined as a medical procedure called 'female circumcision' and given religious exemption? I don't think so; hence the desire for repeal. The world is willing to do everything to help minorities and oppressed people's, but for some reason males-at-birth do not get the same deference, despite the lasting physical and emotional damage male circumcision can cause, and the fact it affects more than just men (in cases where males-at-birth have begun to identify otherwise)."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

[The Ice States]

"Ambassador, the target explicitly enshrines member nations' 'authority to regulate the procedure' in the same clause in question; such regulations could include requiring consent regardless of the person's age, a similar approach, although slightly less restrictive, to what is taken domestically in the Ice States. The most convincing angle for a repeal on these grounds are that the exception only applies to member nations and not the World Assembly, meaning that a World Assembly-wide prohibition on circumcision without consent would be impossible. We would recommend focusing the repeal on this issue."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"And yet if a resolution had been proposed in the same vein and verbiage for FGM, the author would have been crucified by this community. The legislation declares male circumcision to be a medical procedure and legally obligated to permit male circumcision in religious instances ; would we accept FGM had it been defined as a medical procedure called 'female circumcision' and given religious exemption? I don't think so; hence the desire for repeal. The world is willing to do everything to help minorities and oppressed people's, but for some reason in the age of 'screw the patriarchy,' males-at-birth do not get the same deference."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"I ... admit that I am unsure as to what you are arguing here, Ambassador. The only restrictions on circumcision which the target may be incompatible with are an outright prohibition regardless of consent or medical necessity, or World Assembly-wide restriction of the practice which may include requiring consent. Whichever it is that this repeal intends to argue, you should say it; though I do note that desiring an outright prohibition regardless of consent would undermine the argument regarding bodily autonomy also present in the repeal."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"And yet if a resolution had been proposed in the same vein and verbiage for FGM, the author would have been crucified by this community. The legislation declares male circumcision to be a medical procedure and legally obligated to permit male circumcision in religious instances ; would we accept FGM had it been defined as a medical procedure called 'female circumcision' and given religious exemption? I don't think so; hence the desire for repeal. The world is willing to do everything to help minorities and oppressed people's, but for some reason in the age of 'screw the patriarchy,' males-at-birth do not get the same deference."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"I ... admit that I am unsure as to what you are arguing here, Ambassador. The only restrictions on circumcision which the target may be incompatible with are an outright prohibition regardless of consent or medical necessity, or World Assembly-wide restriction of the practice which may include requiring consent. Whichever it is that this repeal intends to argue, you should say it; though I do note that desiring an outright prohibition regardless of consent would undermine the argument regarding bodily autonomy also present in the repeal."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The text as written for the target allows religious exemptions for Male Circumcision by affirming it may be performed for religious reasons. This is unacceptable to us and should be removed. Unfortunately we cannot amend resolutions, we must repeal them. Thus, this legislation must be repealed to remove this exemption. If someone would like to make a replacement to close this loophole, I welcome them to - I have no plans to ban the procedure outright, merely close the religious loophole."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador of Elyreia

[The Ice States]

"I ... admit that I am unsure as to what you are arguing here, Ambassador. The only restrictions on circumcision which the target may be incompatible with are an outright prohibition regardless of consent or medical necessity, or World Assembly-wide restriction of the practice which may include requiring consent. Whichever it is that this repeal intends to argue, you should say it; though I do note that desiring an outright prohibition regardless of consent would undermine the argument regarding bodily autonomy also present in the repeal."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The text as written for the target allows religious exemptions for Male Circumcision by affirming it may be performed for religious reasons. This is unacceptable to us and should be removed. Unfortunately we cannot amend resolutions, we must repeal them. Thus, this legislation must be repealed to remove this exemption. If someone would like to make a replacement to close this loophole, I welcome them to - I have no plans to ban the procedure outright, merely close the religious loophole."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador of Elyreia

"Does it? I read the 'Affirming' clause as being merely a preambulatory clause; 'may be' in the sense of 'can be' or 'is', rather than as an authorisation. The operative clauses are 'Declares' and 'Obliges'; neither of which is incompatible with a member nation permitting circumcision in a general sense, but prohibiting the proper subset in which it is performed without consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"The text as written for the target allows religious exemptions for Male Circumcision by affirming it may be performed for religious reasons. This is unacceptable to us and should be removed. Unfortunately we cannot amend resolutions, we must repeal them. Thus, this legislation must be repealed to remove this exemption. If someone would like to make a replacement to close this loophole, I welcome them to - I have no plans to ban the procedure outright, merely close the religious loophole."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador of Elyreia

"Does it? I read the 'Affirming' clause as being merely a preambulatory clause; 'may be' in the sense of 'can be' or 'is', rather than as an authorisation. The operative clauses are 'Declares' and 'Obliges'; neither of which is incompatible with a member nation permitting circumcision in a general sense, but prohibiting the proper subset in which it is performed without consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The term 'affirming' in legal jurisprudence is to confirm or ratify. Thus, the World Assembly confirms, ratifies, approves, or makes known it is a fact that male circumcision is performed for medical and religious reasons, declares (which has the same weight as affirming) it a medical procedure (which as affirmed above can be done for medical and religious purposes), and obliges WA member nations to permit the medical procedure (which as affirmed, ratified, approved or stayed as fact above can be done for religious purposes).

"It does not read of a preamble to us but as a legal confirmation and approval of when it is performed, thus granting it a religious purpose."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

[Earthly Cossack]

Is this repeal or repeal and replace?
Just curious.

[Elyreia]

Is this repeal or repeal and replace?
Just curious.

I would be in favor of repeal and replacement to bring it to parity with GA #114. However I am happy with repeal.

If the community at large demands replacement, I can work such as well.

[Earthly Cossack]

Is this repeal or repeal and replace?
Just curious.

I would be in favor of repeal and replacement to bring it to parity with GA #114. However I am happy with repeal.

If the community at large demands replacement, I can work such as well.

I feel the original could use more work so I'm up for a replace.

[The Ice States]

"Does it? I read the 'Affirming' clause as being merely a preambulatory clause; 'may be' in the sense of 'can be' or 'is', rather than as an authorisation. The operative clauses are 'Declares' and 'Obliges'; neither of which is incompatible with a member nation permitting circumcision in a general sense, but prohibiting the proper subset in which it is performed without consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The term 'affirming' in legal jurisprudence is to confirm or ratify. Thus, the World Assembly confirms, ratifies, or makes known it is a fact that male circumcision is performed for medical and religious reasons, declares (which has the same weight as affirming) it a medical procedure (which as affirmed above can be done for medical and religious purposes), and obliges WA member nations to permit the medical procedure (which as affirmed above can be done for religious purposes).

"It does not read of a preamble to us but as a legal confirmation of when it is performed, thus granting it a religious purpose."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"Indeed, Ambassador, it states that circumcision is often performed for religious purposes. However, there is nothing to indicate that this means religious and medical circumcision is excluded from wording in the resolution addressing circumcision in a general sense; specifically the wording allowing member nations to regulate circumcision, religious or otherwise. In fact, the most natural wording is that it is included, and thus religious circumcision can still be regulated within member nations -- including by requiring consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"The term 'affirming' in legal jurisprudence is to confirm or ratify. Thus, the World Assembly confirms, ratifies, or makes known it is a fact that male circumcision is performed for medical and religious reasons, declares (which has the same weight as affirming) it a medical procedure (which as affirmed above can be done for medical and religious purposes), and obliges WA member nations to permit the medical procedure (which as affirmed above can be done for religious purposes).

"It does not read of a preamble to us but as a legal confirmation of when it is performed, thus granting it a religious purpose."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

"Indeed, Ambassador, it states that circumcision is often performed for religious purposes. However, there is nothing to indicate that this means religious and medical circumcision is excluded from wording in the resolution addressing circumcision in a general sense; specifically the wording allowing member nations to regulate circumcision, religious or otherwise. In fact, the most natural wording is that it is included, and thus religious circumcision can still be regulated within member nations -- including by requiring consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The consent of minors falls to their parents; thus a nation may choose not to ban the procedure at all. We allowed no such exemptions for FGM, so why is MGM allowed such? One could also, by plain text reading, say this legislation does nothing more than legalize male circumcision just as well as it bans it. Which means the legislation does nothing substantial except say circumcision is a medical procedure done for medical or religious purposes that may or may not be permitted. So why allow this piece of garbage bloatware be in place when it doesn't really do anything except legalize male circumcision, except where it isn't, except where it is, unless otherwise stated it isn't."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

[The Ice States]

"Indeed, Ambassador, it states that circumcision is often performed for religious purposes. However, there is nothing to indicate that this means religious and medical circumcision is excluded from wording in the resolution addressing circumcision in a general sense; specifically the wording allowing member nations to regulate circumcision, religious or otherwise. In fact, the most natural wording is that it is included, and thus religious circumcision can still be regulated within member nations -- including by requiring consent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"The consent of minors falls to their parents; thus a nation may choose not to ban the procedure at all. We allowed no such exemptions for FGM, so why is MGM allowed such? One could also, by plain text reading, say this legislation does nothing more than legalize male circumcision just as well as it bans it. Which means the legislation does nothing substantial except say circumcision is a medical procedure done for medical or religious purposes that may or may not be permitted. So why allow this piece of garbage bloatware be in place when it doesn't really do anything except legalize male circumcision, except where it isn't, except where it is, unless otherwise stated it isn't."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio

"It seems your objection, then, is that the target allows member nations to permit circumcision without consent. We agree on this and our initial advice stands to focus the repeal on this flaw. What we do not believe is that the target requires member nations to permit the practice; any member nation seeking to prohibit circumcision without consent would merely apply the interpretation that allows them to do so."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Elyreia]

"The consent of minors falls to their parents; thus a nation may choose not to ban the procedure at all. We allowed no such exemptions for FGM, so why is MGM allowed such? One could also, by plain text reading, say this legislation does nothing more than legalize male circumcision just as well as it bans it. Which means the legislation does nothing substantial except say circumcision is a medical procedure done for medical or religious purposes that may or may not be permitted. So why allow this piece of garbage bloatware be in place when it doesn't really do anything except legalize male circumcision, except where it isn't, except where it is, unless otherwise stated it isn't."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio

"It seems your objection, then, is that the target allows member nations to permit circumcision without consent. We agree on this and our initial advice stands to focus the repeal on this flaw. What we do not believe is that the target requires member nations to permit the practice; any member nation seeking to prohibit circumcision without consent would merely apply the interpretation that allows them to do so."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"Our own affirming statement declares circumcision done without patient consent as mutilation, and later declared that GA 114 bans the procedure without consent on females, thus meaning GA 142 is no longer in parity with GA 114 since it permits the operation without consent. Perhaps a further elaboration that this is the stated problem with the resolution, but I'm worried about redundancy in the statements. We'll take it into consideration and consultation."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Delegate for Elyreia

[The Ice States]

"It seems your objection, then, is that the target allows member nations to permit circumcision without consent. We agree on this and our initial advice stands to focus the repeal on this flaw. What we do not believe is that the target requires member nations to permit the practice; any member nation seeking to prohibit circumcision without consent would merely apply the interpretation that allows them to do so."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"Our own affirming statement declares circumcision done without patient consent as mutilation, and later declared that GA 114 bans the procedure without consent on females, thus meaning GA 142 is no longer in parity with GA 114 since it permits the operation without consent. Perhaps a further elaboration that this is the stated problem with the resolution, but I'm worried about redundancy in the statements. We'll take it into consideration and consultation."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Delegate for Elyreia

"Changing 'permitting male genital mutilation' to 'allowing member nations to permit male genital mutilation' would address this point nicely, I believe."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[The Overmind]

Support in principle.

[Knootoss]

Statement from the Knootoss World Assembly office:

It is deeply unfortunate that the latest attempt to repeal General Assembly Resolution # 141 (Permit Male Circumcision) is being fronted by a member of the General Assembly secretariat. Unfortunately it levels some of the same misguided arguments against a Knootian resolution that has been keeping a toxic debate at bay since 2011.

The logic behind the draft repeal is plainly flawed, and the Knootian World Assembly office asks that the authors reconsider and withdraw their proposal, using the instrument of domestic legislation instead.

Affirming that circumcision when performed without either consent or medical necessity is mutilation,

Are the authors merely trying to reframe a medical procedure by defining it as something scary? Or is there an argument here about consent and/or medical necessity that isn't being made explicit? As it stands it sounds either like mis-characterising what GA #141 does, or legislating outright in a repeal.

Is the argument is that GA #141 allows doctors to operate on their patients without consent? Or that this is allowed in general in either your countries or as the result of WA assembly legislation at large?

Because patients undergoing male circumcision are entitled to all the protections associated with a medical procedure as per the resolution.

Rebuking GA#141’s characterization of circumcision as merely a medical procedure,

The resolution explicitly affirms that male circumcision may be performed for a range of medical and religious reasons. The repeal ironically mischaracterises the target resolution in this.

Horrified that GA#141 enshrines gender inequality into law by permitting male genital mutilation while female genital mutilation is rightfully outlawed under GA#114

Knootoss supported and continues to support the ban on female genital mutilation.

The target resolution defines circumcision as the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis. It is true that the resolution only affects persons with a penis, regardless of gender identification. In the same way that a resolution regulating car emissions only affects car owners. But there is an underlying biological difference in the essential character of either procedure.

It seems absurd, not to mention extremely offensive, to argue that the removal of (part of the) foreskin from the penis is the moral, medical or legal equivalent of the removal of the inner and outer labia, the suturing of the vulva and the removal of the clitoris. Nor is the penis typically sewn shut and then perforated afterwards. These are different practices affecting a different organ.

[Knootoss]

"The consent of minors falls to their parents; thus a nation may choose not to ban the procedure at all. We allowed no such exemptions for FGM, so why is MGM allowed such? One could also, by plain text reading, say this legislation does nothing more than legalize male circumcision just as well as it bans it. Which means the legislation does nothing substantial except say circumcision is a medical procedure done for medical or religious purposes that may or may not be permitted. So why allow this piece of garbage bloatware be in place when it doesn't really do anything except legalize male circumcision, except where it isn't, except where it is, unless otherwise stated it isn't."

-Korus Vaelans
Aēksio of the Elyreian Foreign Corps
World Assembly Ambassador for Elyreia

This is a question I can answer. Prior to the passage of the resolution in 2011, there was a stream of draft resolutions, and multiple failed votes, arguing for a total ban on male circumcision, to be enforced on all member states. There was no majority for this position, ever, but there is a sufficiently large activist community to have made this issue a constantly recurring, ugly debate between highly engaged radical extremes and a very put-upon group in the middle that just wanted the debate to be over.

Knootoss is still frequently notified that one, two, three or four illegal repeal attempts have been filled against Resolution # 141, usually removed before these even make it to the deadline.

This resolution allows your government considerable leeway in legislating this issue in accordance with your political preferences without turning some 20% of debates in the general assembly into discussions about penises.

[Wallenburg]

"No entity may restrict the right of an individual to their own body. It is ultimately within the bounds of the target resolution to ban circumcision on children and other individuals incapable of consenting to this cosmetic surgery. The framing is no doubt hypocritical against the backdrop of the World Assembly's outrage at other forms of genital mutilation, but the letter of the law permits equal protections. I suggest trying instead to make regulation mandatory, rather than removing a law whose only effect is to permit those who wish to receive this alteration from doing so."