News

Norway wants circumcision banned

Norway wants circumcision banned

Religious leaders express their anger

JENNY Klinge,  Norway’s Centre Party justice policy spokeswoman, has angered religious leaders by condemning the ritual circumcision of infant boys. Calling it “outdated” and “dangerous”, she called for its ban. She said:

In my view, this is a custom that we cannot accept in a modern, civilized society. Our aim is to prioritise the rights of small children. Fortunately, it has become forbidden to circumcise girls, now it’s time for boys to get the same legal protection.

She stressed that boys who have been ritually circumcised can never remove what she called “a religious marker” if they choose to convert to another religion or have no religious beliefs.

I’m not buying the argument that banning circumcision is a violation of religious freedom, because such freedom must involve being able to choose for themselves.

But she stressed that she was not opposed to circumcision in cases where it was deemed a medical necessity.

However, circumcision based on ritual and religion is actually about holding down a newborn baby boy and cutting off part of a healthy sexual organ, with all the consequences that this might have for an individual’s future health and sex life.

With this in mind, performing a circumcision on religious grounds ought to be made a criminal offence, she added.

Jan Helge Solbakk, a professor of medical ethics at Oslo University, agreed with Klinge’s criticism of the practice.

It represents an irreversible operation on a boy who is not in a position to protect himself, and as such is in breach of basic human rights.

Ervin Kohn, Chairman and Trustee of the Jewish community disagrees, saying a ban would serve as a very strong signal that the Jews are an unwanted minority in the country. He claims that 99 percent of all Jews in the world circumcise their male children.

It is the visible covenant between Abraham and God. It goes directly on religious freedom and that Norway is a tolerant society.

Kohn also points out that research has documented the health benefits of circumcision.

Glen Poole, Strategic Director of The Men’s Network in Brighton & Hove, reports on his Ending Unnecessary Male Circumcision in the UK blog that the proposed ban had also been condemned by Espen Ottosen, Information Director of Misjonssambandet (Federation of Christian Missionaries), and a Muslim Norwegian physician, Mohammad Usman Rana, who voiced his opposition in a newspaper article entitled Circumcision: Those who will forbid circumcision of young boys in reality invite a totalitarian guardian-state.

Poole points out that pro-circumcisionists claim:

To circumcise boys is a minor operation. Internationally there is a plethora of medical studies which report few complications. We know that the procedure actually provides health benefits.  Urinary tract infections for example are far less common among circumcised boys.  The risk of HIV contamination is also reduced.

Poole counters:

We say all the reported health benefits have either been disproven, contradicted or considered too insignificant to justify the agreed risks and complications which include bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. There isn’t a single medical association in the world that supports the procedure. 

The British Medical Association, for example, stated in 2003 that ‘the medical benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven’ and ‘that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

See “Circumcision Turned into Porn by Catholic Paedophile” here.

217 Responses to “Norway wants circumcision banned”

  1. Anon says:

    >I would say that child has grounds to apply an assault rifle to each and every one of the members of his brain-damaged family (and this being the US very possibly will). The good news is they won’t hear it coming.

    Actually you’d need a class 3 license for that, since actual assault rifles are fully automatic. I suppose you could use a semi-auto weapon chambered in the same intermediate cartridge, though why you would not just use one of the 20 full rifle cartridge battle rifles we own or the hundreds of rifles, pistols, or shotguns we also own I don’t understand. It is a general rule that we all own firearms, since we are primarily based in rural areas this makes allot of sense.

    Also a traitor seems pretty unlikely given the precedent.

    And really only 5 people in the US have been murdered with an automatic weapon since 1934. Hell nobody really uses rifles or shotguns for crime anyway. A Saturday-night special is far more concealable, which is the whole point of a firearm if you using it for a crime.

  2. remigius says:

    Idiots and guns, eh. I dunno!

  3. Matt Westwood says:

    “A Saturday-night special is far more concealable, which is the whole point of a firearm if you using it for a crime.”

    Crime? Who said anything about “crime”? This is extermination of vermin (in this context, American = “vermin”).

  4. JohnMWhite says:

    Fascinating that this particular issue is what has blown up the comments section to unprecedented proportions. People get really, really defensive about having part of their genitals cut off for no good reason.

    Coming from a country that doesn’t perform routine genital mutilation, I have been somewhat baffled at the lengths its defenders go to in order to justify the idea that there’s something wrong or dangerous or unhealthy about having a foreskin. It’s the other way around. One maxim I keep seeing, particularly from Anon, is this:

    “Circumcision has no negative attribute”

    That’s not true. Firstly it is painful, and I’m not afraid to allude to people who dismiss this as being sociopathic. Pain alone isn’t a reason to avoid a medical treatment, but paltry evidence for very minor health benefits isn’t a reason to inflict it on an infant either. Second, it is prone to risk, as with any surgery. Third, removing the most sensitive part of the penis has a naturally negative impact on what that part is used for – sexual pleasure. This affects both partners.

    http://www.coloradonocirc.org/sexual.php shows just what impact this has on sensitivity. I’d go on to say there’s a reason European men are thought of as good lovers – they aren’t shafting their partners with a dry, callused rod.

  5. Robert Samson says:

    Circumcision has no negative attribute, and minor hygenic benefits.

    It is obvious that you know nothing about the consequences of this practice. I.e. the loss of up to 3/4 of the penile sensation and sensitivity.

    Sorry, but that “hygiene” myth has been dismissed decades ago, by no the less, the pro-circumcision AAP.

    Retract, rinse, replace–way easier than for women!

  6. [...] Religious leaders furious over Norway’s proposed circumcision ban (freethinker.co.uk) [...]

  7. Simon says:

    So err, what is the point of circumcision? If there are no benefits, but proven detriments; why do it? Religious loonies not withstanding

  8. remigius says:

    News just in. A court in Germany has ruled that religious circumcision is a crime!

    http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html

  9. Bill Murray says:

    I’ve been thinking about this thread over a number of days, and it occurs to me that the main religious reason for this procedure is simply branding. I think any supposed secular reason has been well and truly dealt with.

    That being the case, I would be interested to see how an argument could be made for actual branding, as in with a hot iron. Perhaps a small hot iron brand with some sort of symbol, a crescent moon comes to mind, or perhaps a menorah. That way there could be no mistake about who claimed the infant, no bodily mutilation (well not much anyway) but still a permanent mark to show who owns what.

    Surely religious parents would support such a move. If not, why not. I would think that a small, hot branding on the hip or back wouldn’t be all that painful, and it would heal within a week or so – besides, the baby surely wouldn’t remember any pain. Clearly the hip and back are less sensitive than the penis (or clitoris) so I assume religious parents would be very happy to cause their little ones less distress.

    Of course to advocate this process for real would require:
    a) an acceptance of a god with a lust for pain (that’s obviously covered)
    b) an acceptance that babies and children do not have the same rights as adults (again, this is clearly the case)
    c) that adults have the right to mutilate their children (see (b) above)
    d) that parents are able to over-ride their natural protective urges for their children (amazingly this already seems to be the case)

    So what’s the actual difference to circumcision, except that it would be less painful?

    …and another thing, how come it’s OK for a god to order a mark but in Revelations the mark of the beast is a bad thing?

    (Self-disclosure: I was circumcised as an infant because my father thought it would be less painful than if I needed it done should I end up in the army – as he did during WW2. Apparently it was common for soldiers in the Australian Army to be done. As it turns out, I never did military service (probably why I am such a pinko lefty I guess) but I am still circumcised. I personally don’t give a bugger for myself, but I am very certain that parents should never do anything irreversible to their children without genuine medical need – and that includes bloody ear piercing. Kids suffer enough from soaking up their parents’ behaviours as it is; poor buggers.)

  10. Anon says:

    for:JohnMWhite
    >That’s not true. Firstly it is painful, and I’m not afraid to allude to people who dismiss this as being sociopathic.
    Sticks and stones, also if you are going to extend the definition of that word so far it is rended non-descriptive. If that’s what it means to be a sociopath I would be proud that I considered one.

    >Third, removing the most sensitive part of the penis has a naturally negative impact on what that part is used for – sexual pleasure.
    Implying that is a bad thing. I want my sons to be heartless machines.

    >I’d go on to say there’s a reason European men are thought of as good lovers – they aren’t shafting their partners with a dry, callused rod.
    Because women don’t masturbate with hard plastic dicks, oh wait. Also how would you even go about collecting data to verify such a thing? Percieved pleasure is such a subjective criteria.

    for:Robert Samson
    >It is obvious that you know nothing about the consequences of this practice. I.e. the loss of up to 3/4 of the penile sensation and sensitivity.
    I wish that were the case, I personally have seen no data to substantiate that claim, but If it is the case thank you for giving me one more reason to encourage my sons to circumcise any sons they themselves produce.

    for:Bill Murray
    >That being the case, I would be interested to see how an argument could be made for actual branding
    There could be one. Branding with a totally unique mark would allow the individual to be readily identified at a glace if it was placed on the upper or lower arm, though with digital fingerprint databases this is no as useful as it would have been decades ago. But this has little to do with uniform surgical procedures which leave no unique mark. My family takes to opposite approach of trying to be untraceable if shit went down, but different people have different survival strategies.

    >a) an acceptance of a god with a lust for pain (that’s obviously covered)
    Gods generally demand blood, physical pain is assigned little value.

    >b) an acceptance that babies and children do not have the same rights as adults (again, this is clearly the case)
    They don’t

    >c) that adults have the right to mutilate their children (see (b) above)
    I’d say if the mutilation improves their relative fitness they have the obligation.

    >d) that parents are able to over-ride their natural protective urges for their children (amazingly this already seems to be the case)
    Protection of offspring should focus on protection from death or debilitation not from pain.

    >and another thing, how come it’s OK for a god to order a mark but in Revelations the mark of the beast is a bad thing?
    >implying Revelations is not an apocryphal work about the condition of the late Roman Empire, seriously guys the number is 616 not 666 and that is Nero’s number.
    Also the mark of the beast is probably the coinage marks of Rome, remember that early christendom disliked banking.

  11. [...] “In my view, this is a custom that we cannot accept in a modern, civilized society. Our aim is to prioritise the rights of small children. Fortunately, it has become forbidden to circumcise girls, now it’s time for boys to get the same legal protection.” Religious leaders furious over Norway’s proposed circumcision ban – The Freethinker [...]

  12. stargraves says:

    This Anon character is hilarious. “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Surely a Poe – a 20 stone loner stinking out a basement in america somewhere.

  13. Jeff says:

    If you agree that this madness also needs to end in the US then there are a few really important things you can do to make a difference:

    1. For those of you who are unaware the “Male Genital Mutilation Bill” was submitted to congress last January. It needs to be backed by the public. You can do this by logging on to http://www.MGMBill.org and hit the “take action” tab. You will be given directions and sample letters to print, sign, and mail to President Obama, and your state gov / reps.

    2. The American Academy of Pediatrics is in the process of rewriting their policy regarding male circ. You can send them a letter urging them to change their neutral statement to recommend AGAINST Male Genital Cutting. Go to http://www.IntactAmerica.org and hit the “take action” tab. They have a pre-written letter that you can endorse electronically. You will also be given an opportunity to edit the letter into your own words.

    3. Public awareness. Help educate the future parents so they won’t be a easily swayed. The majority of doctors are going to continue to collect money for mutilating innocent boys until parents say “NO” or it becomes against the law. Join Intactivist Groups – just google it or do a Facebook search there are several.

  14. Dan Bollinger says:

    A ban would not deny the BOY’s religious rights, in fact, it would support it. It’s the boy’s body, his penis, and his choice what religion to practice. Let HIM decide, when he is old enough.

  15. stokebruernehuman says:

    Well done JENNY Klinge – 10/10 Gold Star and go to the Top of the Class

    Angela Merkel – 0/10 See Me after lessons. Detention for you.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe/

  16. stokebruernehuman says:

    Get rid of this indelible and harmful branding of children. All civilised countries that honour the rights of the individual must outlaw this barbaric, sadistic, primitive, cultish, dogmatic, ignorant and wholly unnecessary abomination. Boys must be protected from religious zealots until they are old enough to decide for themselves – I suggest 18 years old would be a good age. Listen to some of the hysterical screaming point protestations from the zealots……

    A ban on circumcision in Germany has shocked the nation’s Jews and Muslims.
    Jews have pointed out that attacks on Jewish religious rituals have been an unfortunate part of European history since the Roman times.
    One Russian rabbi in Berlin to discuss the ban called it “perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust”.
    But in the Jewish community, there is incredulity at the court’s decision. Jonah Sievers, the Chief Rabbi of Lower Saxony, said “thought it was just impossible”.
    “Not to perform an ancient ritual is beyond the imagination. From ancient times onwards, there were certain times when there were decision by rulers to harm Judaism or to forbid or to weaken the Jewish religion, and one of them was to disallow circumcision.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842

  17. stokebruernehuman says:

    Perhaps Angela Merkel supports the genital mutilation of girls as well. Perhaps she would like to be lashed down and restrained by some hateful, bony, dried out, bony, toothless old crones and get her clitoris cut off.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145