|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Swedish Parliament Scrutinizes Male Circumcision as a Violation of Human Rights
SOURCE: Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
2961 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 Fax/phone 510-595-5550 Email arc@post.harvard.edu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 6, 2001
CONTACT: J. Steven Svoboda, Esq., 1-510-595-5550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swedish Parliament has overwhelmingly passed a new law to regulate male circumcision with the purpose of protecting the human rights of the child. The Parliament voted decisively, 249 to 10, in favor of the new law, whose preliminaries also mandate a study to determine what effect the new law will have and whether male circumcision should be considered a human rights violation. The law is in the process of being enacted. Many Swedish Members of Parliament stated that male circumcision violates children's rights. Several Members of Parliament stated that only an outright ban on circumcision of all minors would be consistent with the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This marks the first time the circumcision of males under the age of majority has been officially accepted for study by a national government as a human rights issue. Sweden's is the first law in modern times to regulate and restrict the practice of male circumcision. All licensed practitioners of male circumcision are now required by law to use anesthesia and to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions. A temporary exception was included to allow licensed Jewish practitioners of male circumcision (mohelim) to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions using anesthesia, but only during the first two months of a child's life. Thereafter, ritual circumcisions performed by anyone other than a medical doctor are not allowed. Violation of the law will result in punishment of up to 6 months in prison or a fine of an individually determined amount based on income.
Sweden has a history of pioneering human rights legislation and not one legislator claimed medically unnecessary circumcision was a legitimate procedure. The 10 dissenters objected only because they supported total criminalization, rather than mere regulation, of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, and without any temporary religious exception.
J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, stated, "This historic decision by Sweden represents a turning point in history. Again Sweden has demonstrated its concern for human rights. It is regrettable that the initial version of the bill, which would have banned outright all circumcisions of male minors, did not pass. Nevertheless, we congratulate Sweden for acknowledging that males' right to genital integrity deserves serious evaluation as a human rights concern."
In 1982, Sweden became the first developed country to outlaw female circumcision. This law was strengthened in 1998. Following Sweden's lead, many countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia have recently passed laws criminalizing female circumcision. Human rights organizations and legal scholars in each of these countries have pointed out that laws prohibiting only female genital cutting are discriminatory and violate national equal protection laws and international human rights laws. Worldwide, in the last four years every national professional medical association, which has issued a recommendation regarding routine male circumcision, has recommended against the practice.
(text is taken from http://www.nospank.net/arc.htm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
WELL ITS ABOUT TIME SOME ONE TOOK A SET IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!
HAT OFF TO THE SWEDS FOR THERE ABILITY TO LOOK PAST THE " NORM" AND TAKE A STAND FOR MALE RIGHTS.....
PEACE
TIM...OF USA
(oops sorry about the caps)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
For your information: a healthy Jewish male child is circumcised on the 8th day after birth and no later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Naturally except for religious communities that seem to enjoy genital mutilation, I feel no male infant shoudl be so mutilated.
Each of us is able in our own countries to write to our elected representatives to lobby for a law similar to the Swedich law to be enacted.
I have written in England to my Member of Parliament and to my European Member of Parliament as well, citing the Swedish law and the article.
I encourage you all to do the same unless it is against your religious beliefs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was some hubbub in papers/evening news a while back (a year? more?) when the topic was raised about outlawing circumcision.
Of course, cries of "religious discrimination!" were raised - mainly from jewish and muslim followers - and I thought the whole thing would just founder because of the proposed law in some people's eyes *looking* like it would incur on the freedom of religion. Naturally, we should not be able to claim we practice OUR religion when cutting away parts of someone ELSE'S body, but it was all about appearance, and we know how important that is to politicians.
Anyway, the media stopped talking about it, and never started again now that the law seems to have been passed.
Thanks for the heads-up, Tim.
-Lenny
PS: Even though we have had a law outlawing female gender mutilation since the early 80:s, so far I don't think ANYONE has been prosecuted for it. And not because no gender mutilation has been going on either, because we know of such cases. Anyway, there was some talk about that too a while back, and like Tim's news quote said - the law was strengthened so that it is now illegal to perform the procedure/torture abroad too. When you get back, you can be prosecuted for it. So far, nobody's been. 
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
My own Member of Parliament is sympathetic and is raising it with government ministers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Kevin Elks (UK) posted this on a Foreskin Restoration Newsgroup:
The Swede's are well ahead of the rest of the European Community but the legislation was initially aimed at an outright ban. Pressure from the minority groups (Muslims and Jews) wrecked this so it was tempered to being allowed for religious or cultural beliefs provided it was done by a state licensed individual. More significant than the act itself is the fact that their parliament has admitted that it is a human rights issue and they will re-visit it in four years time.
Here in the UK we at NORM-UK are now perusing the human rights angle and have made contact with the Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) which is also a registered charity like ourselves. It is strange that a charity in the UK was forbidden to take up issues of human rights because it was legally a political issue. The European Commission issued a directive to all member states that they must put in place a human rights bill. Our Government reluctantly drew up a flimsy act which although called the Human RIGHTS Act is still based on our legal system of privilege (all UK law is based on privilege handed out by the Crown) so any part or all of it can be taken away at any time. But the Charity Commission could because of the Human Rights Act now classify the pursuits of rights as a legitimate non-political activity hence CRAE was allowed as a charity.
The UK government is due to be held to account by the United Nations for the Rights of the Child. We were supposed to have in place a Minister For Children but 10 years after signing the agreement the Government still has no Minister for Children.
Our taxes are at present being spent by our Government setting up circumcision clinics for Muslims and Jews in spite of a directive to provide the procedure ONLY for MEDICAL CONDITIONS.
We have a law that forbids the slightest genital interference on girls or women but that discriminated against boys. We have an opportunity to challenge this on the grounds of discrimination under our new Human Rights Act so there is a lot going on over here but with limited funds.
We have a very low rate of circumcision in the UK and there is a lot of public outrage about child abuse and paedophilia which started when the brutal Belgian Paedophile ring that photographed children being sexually assaulted AND murdered was discovered involving politicians, police and public servants. The cover up that followed so outraged the Belgian people that they took to the streets in the MILLIONS, arguably the largest demonstration of public unrest that Europe has EVER seen. This has of course influenced the British public and many over here would be horrified if they knew that the health service was using tax payers money to sexually mutilate children. Because we are a small country with low circumcision rates I feel we have a good chance of creating a real stink over the issue and following on from the Swedish example but we lack funds. We stand a better chance than the USA or Canada because fewer people are defending the vile practice and it is not the 'NORM'. If we were to make progress over here it would influence the rest of Europe and the USA/Canada as it would set a precedence. You never know President Bush might be influenced by his Poodle (some of us in the UK regard our prime minister Blair as Bush's pet poodle).
Kevin Elks.
(trustee)
http://www.norm-uk.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mt
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 93
|
|
|
By the same human rights token, the law should not force people to do something against their religion!
Circumcision, when performed on boys won’t affect them as it does girls so it’s natural that there’s discrimination.
I think that the Sweden law that circumcision should be banned except when it’s against somebody’s religion is very fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MT, with all due respect, I have to differ here.
A newborn baby isn't a member of ANY religion!
A child has the right to it's own body, ALL OF IT, until coming to such an age as to be able to decide him/herself which, if any, bodyparts to amputate.
We do not allow minors to vote, nor drive cars or purchase alcoholic beverages in my country, let alone kids to have bits of themselves cut off! Give me one good reason why we should allow genital mutilation of minors for ANY reason, simply because the parents wish it?
No, religion is not one such reason. If anything, that a religion demand such a thing is reason enough to ban the *RELIGION* in my opinion! That's not discrimination, it's protecting the rights and bodies of our young ones.
The excuse that male genital mutilation is not as severe as female, is an extremely lame one. Parents do not own their children, and they are NOT the ones to make such a decision in the first place.
This is not meant as an attack on you personally of course, I'm just stating my (differing) opinion.
-Lenny
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Many "religious" practices developed as common sense responses to real issues at the time. This is likely the case with circumcision. Bathing, cleanliness, and sanitation, were concepts that were more or less foreign to the Jewish people in the time of Moses. Water was very scarce. Males, particularly young boys, were very susceptible to very painful infections because they didn't or couldn't keep themselves clean. They figured out that removal of the foreskin helped to prevent such infections. People were very reluctant to adopt the practice willingly. Therefore, it was adopted by the religious leaders and forced upon the people because it was a public health concern. It's time has now passed. Cleanliness should no longer be an issue. The religions need to become as flexible as they were thousands of years ago and ban the practice with the same vigor as they showed when they adopted it. God has provided a better means of preventing infections.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Obvious areas to compare are the eating of pork in a climate where the meat went off rapidly, the eating of shellfish, etc. All these are no longer valid practical reasons, but they carry the status of edicts from God (th eonly safge way to ensure compliance in older times) and are thus major things to alter.
It is quit elikely that the nipping of th etip of the foreskin (the original Moses created ritual) was more a tribal marking than anything else for the Children of Israel, rather than anything to do with hygiene (bulls were not circumcised, after all). People have also postulated that, since circumcision removes sensitive cells, it makes the man do more work at intercourse, fulfilling the Jewish concept of the woman gaining satisfaction from the sexual act. (Steve wil correct any details here). It is felt that, having an inherently more sensitive penis the uncircumcised man achieves orgasm easier than the circumcised one.
Be that all as it may be, my view is probably as intransigent as those whose religious beliefs insist on circumcision. I only believe in it if it is of medical necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
The "routine" circumcision of males in Canada was banned by Federal Statute in late 1985; consequently under the Canada Assistance Plan and Health-care Shared-expense Accountability under Medicare, Ottawa will not allow funding anywhere within any Province or Territory for the practice and has not done so since enactment of the governing Regulation. The only circumcisions still performed are at the expense of the parent and not the public-purse, although the law stippulate this must be performed in a publically funded Hospital. Clinics, et al, are not allowed to provide the service.
Ironically, the Bill passed muster, not on any moral grounds, but strictly from a typically Canadian pragmatic perspective that each circumcision was a CDN$300.00 levy against the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the regulating Province or Territory, of that amount Ottawa being responsible for anywhere from 30% to the full fee under CAP Sharing. As hygiene was perceived as no longer being an issue, with soap and water freely available to all, the legislation passed almost without notice in the media.
The latest figures available (1999) indicate that less than 30% of all males born that year were circumcised which is markedly down from some 95% 20-years earlier.
Warren C. E. Austin
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Swedes pass anti circumcision law 
But there is a difference... 
