News

UK ‘intactivists’ plan protest against a ‘mutilation’ clinic

UK ‘intactivists’ plan protest against a ‘mutilation’ clinic

Anti-circumcision activists led by Mike Buchanan, above, are to mount a protest on March 22 outside one of the UK’s largest circumcision clinics.

The protesters, according to this Luton Today report, are targeting the Thornhill Clinic in Luton for carrying out “child abuse”.

The protest is being organised by Justice for Men and Boys, and will take place outside Thornhill Clinic, Luton, in opposition to what it calls the “mutilation” of boys.

The screenshot below is taken from the clinic’s website:

grab2

The clinic adds:

We cater for all faiths and backgrounds with doctors of different ethnic groups being sensitive to, and catering for any religious or cultural requirement.

Though circumcision for non-medical reasons is not available on the NHS, the procedure is still popular for people from a number of different backgrounds, many of whom use Thornhill Clinic.

However Justice for Men and Boys claims that the procedure is cruel as young boys are not able to give consent. J4MB leader Mike Buchanan said:

The whole point is to take away material that contact nerves and give pleasure to men during sex. People say that it is for hygiene reasons but it is just a cultural and religious thing that has survived. It should be consigned to history.

He added:

There are no health benefits and people have this funny idea that female genital mutilation is this awful, damaging thing and that circumcision is just snipping the foreskin off. They are directly comparable.

In calling for support , J4MB says on its website:

We urge you to attend the protest, whether or not you’ve been personally affected by MGM. We have men at these protests who are uncircumcised, and men who were circumcised, but have no problem with that. They firmly believe, however, that in future male minors should not suffer the procedure, and be allowed to make up their own minds after they’ve passed 18 years of age.

In the comments section of the Luton Today report, Buchanan quoted Moses Maimonides, the Jewish intellectual and physician, as saying back in 1135:

With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible …

The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. In my opinion, this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Jewish men, sexually subdued and readily controlled by their wives, don’t stray into mischief. The power of his member has been diminished so that he has no strength to lie with many lewd women.

In a statement Thornhill Clinic said:

We take great pride in our services, particularly with the welfare of our babies, children and adults.

Our fully trained doctors have performed several thousand operations and are very skilled, experienced and above all provide the very highest standards of professional care.
It added:

Our presence gives parents and communities the option to use a registered and reputable clinic to have their sons circumcised.

This in turn will stop the many home circumcisions that are currently taking place in and around the UK; the home is an unsafe environment to carry out this or any operation.

15 responses to “UK ‘intactivists’ plan protest against a ‘mutilation’ clinic”

  1. Laura Roberts says:

    Funny that Maimonides provided a litany of excellent reasons NOT to circumcise, but claims they are the best reasons for it. And I’m certain history has proved him right that circumcized men don’t seek prostitutes. Nope, just doesn’t happen. Except it does. In fact, curcumcised men seek prostitutes more often than uncircumcised men (see, e.g., http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/1995/01000/Male_Circumcision,_Sexually_Transmitted_Disease,.12.aspx)

    D’oh!

    The best reason for circumcision would be if it eliminated the chances of some fairly common disease, e.g., if it had a 90% prevention rate for testicular cancer , and if testicular cancer occurred in ~20% of men instead of fewer than 1%. Then the pro-genital-mutilation crowd might have a leg to stand on. But the evidence I’ve seen so far doesn’t come close to that. There has been some evidence that uncircumcised men may get HIV at higher rates (same reference above) but it’s a far cry from a slam-dunk.

  2. Brummie says:

    FGM and MGM are the same brutal child-abuse in my view. One more horrific and life-damaging that the other. Both should be illegal.

  3. barriejohn says:

    The procedure may be “safe and reliable”, but it is not without risk, so why subject any child to an unnecessary operation? Children need to be eighteen years of age to have a tattoo in this country, with or without parental permission, so why should genital mutilation not be subject to the same limitation?

  4. Angela_K says:

    This is a violent bodily assault on children and should be outlawed just as is FGM. It is incredible that in the 21st Century both the Pork dodging religions and other religious cults can continue to abuse boys in this barbaric way. I can’t see our supine government doing anything about this practise, they fear the usual shrieks of “racist”or “religious rights”.

  5. Rob Andrews says:

    Is any anesthetic used? Local or otherwise. And anything for pain afterword? Urinating could be painful for some time afterword.

    THat part of the body is especially sensitive to pain as it has a lot of nerve endings.

    Taliban joke: You may be a Talaban if you find masterbation evil, but beating your wife alright.

  6. CoastalMaineBird says:

    “Safe and Reliable Male Circumcisions”.

    What does “reliable” mean in this context ?

    That it doesn’t grow back ?

  7. George says:

    I’m circumcised and perfectly happy. Circumcised males on average figure out how to use their penises at an earlier age, according to the “National Health and Social Life Survey,” survey out of the U. of Chicago (best & biggest dataset since Kinsey), because the gift gets unwrapped.

    But the biggest issue is about group identity. I’m all for robust social groups, even at some expense of individual autonomy … because the latter, in extremis, just becomes a field for absolute neoliberal exploitation.

    Let’s hear it for having a whole bunch of forms of resistance to the emptiness of the marketplace… Islamic, Jewish among them. And you don’t have religion without some sacrifices… like the small & symbolic one of the foreskin.

  8. barriejohn says:

    George: Maybe you’d have got further in life if you’d learnt to use your brain rather than your dick.

    Absolute neoliberal exploitation.

    What the fucking hell is THAT supposed to mean?

  9. barriejohn says:

    National Health and Social Life Survey:

    While NHSLS results do not lead clear support to either side of the circumcision debate, they make a significant contribution to our knowledge regarding the potential risks and benefits of circumcision. In addition to documenting the prevalence of circumcision across various social groups, we have discovered that circumcision provides no discernible prophylactic benefit and may in fact increase the likelihood of STD contraction; that circumcised men have a slightly lessened risk of experiencing sexual dysfunction, especially among older men; and that circumcised men displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices. While evidence regarding STD experience contributes to ongoing debates, our results concerning sexual dysfunction suggest the need for continued research that should further aid parents in weighing the benefits and risks of circumcising their sons.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

  10. RussellW says:

    Of course circumcision is mutilation, like FGM and the crucial point is that it’s not performed on consenting adults. Most of my generation was circumcised, I have no idea what the medical ‘justification’ was, it was probably just the fashion.

    The chances of stopping the practice of circumcision for religious reasons would be about zero, because as far as the average religiot is concerned religious ‘rights’ override human rights.

    Good luck Mike Buchanan, you’re going to need it.

  11. John the Drunkard says:

    ‘…neoliberal exploitation.’ = Telling brown-skinned people not to cut pieces off of children.

    I’m only remembering off the top of my head. But I recall that penile cancer prevention used to be dredged up as an excuse. Except that one is MORE likely to die of complications from routine circumcision than from penile cancer.

    Medical claims used for post-hoc justification of circumcision always fall in the face of simple inquiry. It was done first for religion (thanks Abraham) and then as an abusive anti-sex campaign in England and America. No real justification ever. Well…maybe the Egyptians were trying to protect against Nile-water parasites? maybe?

  12. Newspaniard says:

    I don’t remember the name of the site, but there used to be one straightforward one which debunked the pro-circumcision lobby. There are loads of sites out there using the search “anti-circumcision sites”. One of the many statistics I remember reading (it is burned in my brain) is that in the USA, on average, 84 deaths occur a year owing to complications with circumcision. That fact alone should deter a loving parent from having her (his) child mutilated. Another reason given recently by a bunch of semi-intelligent or delusional doctors was that circumcision prevents cervical cancer… Oh Yeah? Look at the cancer statistics for Pakistan and you will discover that 85% of cancer in women is the cervical type and guess the percentage of (muslim) men in Pakistan who are circumcised? You butchers will have to think of another reason to justify child mutilation.

  13. barriejohn says:

    Newspaniard: Some figures are given here, but, as they say, all will be discounted by those in favour of infant mutilation.

    http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

    The very worst justification for taking this sort of risk, which I heard from my Plymouth Brethren colleagues (many of whom are anti-vaccine, as it might interfere with “God’s plans”) is that if “God” takes away one of your children then that is his way of disciplining you, and, as the Bible says, only a loving father chastises his children, so the greater the pain of loss the greater the demonstration of his love. It really takes some mental gymnastics to get your head around that one!

  14. Michael Glass says:

    They say that their circumcision service is “safe and reliable.” However, not all circumcisions are safe. There are regular reports of botched circumcisions and bad outcomes, even when the operation is conducted by doctors.

    Here is a list of proposals to ensure that really bad outcomes occur less frequently.

    1 Circumcisions performed by unqualified people should be prohibited. Whether medical or ritual, all circumcisions must be performed by qualified people.

    2 It should be the responsibility of the circumciser to ensure that the person to be circumcised is free from any counter-indications, including bleeding disorders and other conditions that make the procedure inadvisable.

    3 Incompetent circumcisers should be banned for life from doing any more circumcisions.

    4 No boy should be circumcised without the written permission of both parents. If one parent does not agree, then the fate of the foreskin should be decided by its owner, when he is a grown man.

    5 Circumcisions of men and older boys must not go ahead without their agreement in writing.

    6 Dangerous traditional practices such as bush circumcisions or sucking the circumcision wound should be exposed and firmly discouraged.

    7 Forced circumcision of any man should be treated as a sexual assault.

    These rules would not stop most circumcisions but they would help to reduce the really bad outcomes.

  15. Cali Ron says:

    One of the justification I remember was that during WWI the troops in the trenches couldn’t maintain proper cleanliness and circumcision lowered the chances of getting an infection. So If you aren’t planning on bathing or cleaning yourself for long stretches at a time….?

    I’m circumcised, my son is not. He’s 26 years old and so far has had no reason to mutilate himself.