[size=14pt]German circumcision ban: Is it a parent's right to choose?
[/size]
By Stephen Evans

BBC News, Berlin

A ban on circumcision in Germany has shocked the nation's Jews and Muslims. The right of parents to make decisions for their children is now under the spotlight.

A court ruling in Germany effectively banning circumcision has united Jews and Muslims in anger - and they are backed by the country's main medical association.

Muslims have warned that the devout will take sons abroad to be circumcised.

Jews have pointed out that attacks on Jewish religious rituals have been an unfortunate part of European history since the Roman times, and say they are dismayed by the latest ban. One Russian rabbi in Berlin to discuss the ban called it "perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust".

The German government has been stung by the reaction. Chancellor Merkel's spokesman said that circumcision must be possible in Germany - though he didn't say whether the law would be changed or clarified by a higher court.

The ruling by the district court of Cologne says circumcision "for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity".

The judgement added: "The child's body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation."

The case stemmed from a circumcision on a four-year-old Muslim boy who had to be taken to hospital when complications developed. That, unusually, put the case into the legal system and the doctor was prosecuted.

As the charge put it, the doctor "physically mistreated another person and injured that person's health by means of a dangerous instrument".

In the end, he was cleared. The court decided that circumcision was illegal but that the doctor couldn't have been expected to have known this. It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court - it wasn't.

Because the doctor was cleared, there will be no appeal to a higher court, which means the soundness of the rest of the judgement will not immediately be tested.

This puts the medical profession in a great dilemma. Dr Frank Montgomery, the president of the German Medical Association, told the BBC: "It leaves doctors in a legal quagmire. We are convinced that circumcision is best performed under medical conditions by physicians in a hospital.

"This is obviously no longer legally possible so therefore we have to advise our physicians not to perform these operations because they run the legal risk of being taken to court."

Already, the Jewish Hospital in Berlin, which has been performing ritual circumcisions for 250 years, has stopped. Its medical director, Professor Kristof Graf said: "We have had to stop planned surgeries in five cases already where they were scheduled for circumcision and the families were completely destroyed and upset about this."

Despite its name, the Jewish Hospital performs ritual circumcisions on Muslims as well as Jews, in fact more of the former than the latter, largely because there are many more Muslims in Germany than Jews.

The rules of ritual circumcision are different for each faith. For Jews, it has to be done on the eighth day after birth (assuming the baby is healthy), but Muslims can wait longer.

So for Jews, the problem is more urgent. Circumcision is already performed by "mohels" - people designated as able to circumcise - but many prefer the safeguards which formal medical facilities provide.

The circumcision tradition
[img]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842[/img]

A poll for Focus magazine found that 56% of those polled thought the judgement was right, compared with 35% against and 10% undecided.

But in the Jewish community, there is incredulity at the court's decision. Jonah Sievers, the Chief Rabbi of Lower Saxony, told the BBC that when he first heard, he "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, so it's not the first time and probably will not be the last time.

"Circumcision as the expression of the Covenant between God and his people is such an ancient and entrenched ritual. It's more than just a ritual. It's performed by Orthodox and Liberal Jews alike. It's a core part of the religion."

There has been outrage outside Germany, too, for example from Britain's Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks - though he sees the ruling as a blow primarily directed at Muslims, with Jews as "collateral damage".

In Germany at the moment, there is a debate about the role of Islam in society, and the extent to which it is really a part of German life. People argue over how far society should tolerate rules particular to one group, Muslims in particular. It's not unique to Germany - in Britain, France and other countries, there's been debate about the veil.

Muslim groups are reacting cautiously to the court decision.

Mohammed Asif Sadiq, one of the leaders at the Katijah Mosque in Berlin, told the BBC the mosque didn't want to get involved in a public debate on a subject that provoked such strong emotions. "But in the long run it will be necessary to discuss it with politicians and with the court and even to ask the federal court to decide and make one law which is applicable for all," he said.

In the meantime, he felt, circumcision would continue but in less hygienic conditions. "One possibility is medical tourism so people with fundamental belief will just go to their homelands.

"I do not want small children who are born in Germany to move to another country, maybe a third-world country, where laymen who have no medical instruction cut their foreskins."

The defenders of the ruling say that it had nothing to do with religion - it was just an interpretation of the law. The court relied heavily on the opinions of a professor at the University of Passau in Bavaria, Dr Holm Putzke, who has written an article in the Legal Journal, a magazine for lawyers in Germany, applauding the ruling.

"After all the knee-jerk outrage has subsided, it is to be hoped it will set in motion a discussion about religiously motivated violence against children," he wrote.

Some newspaper columnists and editorials have also come out in favour of the ban. Matthias Ruch of the FT Deutschland, said: "The judgment is right - all protests to the contrary. The circumcision of young boys just for religious reasons is a personal injury. Muslims and Jews should decide themselves - but not before the age of 14".

Die Welt wrote: "The circumcision of Muslim boys is just as heinous as the archaic custom of the genital mutilation of little girls. It is an instrument of oppression and should be outlawed".

The court's ruling also touched upon the rights of parents to take decisions on behalf of their children. As the judgement put it: "There was no consent by the child, who was four years old at the time, and since the child was not old enough to understand the situation, there was no question of such consent being given."

But that, according to Dr Montgomery opens a can of worms. "How about piercing the ears of little children. Do parents have the right to pierce the ears of their little daughters?"

And what rights do parents have over their children's religion, he wonders: "With baptism in Christianity, you pre-construct the religious position of little children by baptising them.

"And I think our Constitutional Court has to decide if parents have the right to do this because this is the legal basis of the verdict which the court in Cologne has taken."

But this decision won't happen any time soon. It can take many years for a case to get to the Constitutional Court - and a test case is not currently even in prospect.

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

Sharaap.


Does the ban not affect christians and jews as well?

dont mind the 1diot

okosodo: dont mind the 1diot

This is very uncalled for.
@topic,
I guess they have no choice but to take their kids abroad to carry out circumcision.
I don't know why anyone would be against circumcision. What purpose does the foreskin serve other than to harbor dirt?

But that, according to Dr Montgomery opens a can of worms. "How about piercing the ears of little children. Do parents have the right to pierce the ears of their little daughters?"

Good question.

where is the moderator? an Islamic forum is turned into a pub where people talk like when they are drunk.

To me the judge simply made his judgment not against Islam per say but on his own interpretation of the german law, his interpretation creates a situation for both jews and muslims, and it is very interesting that major politicians in Germany have condemned the ruling calling it an attack on Germany muti-culturalism . I think the doctors can create a loophole in the judgement by "pretending" it is a health issue rather religious atleast the 56% hypocrites who support such ruling in what doesn't concern them can not be questioning what motive for circucision, this sort of loophole is done by American doctors who pretend, when a woman ask for abortion, that the mothers health is in serious danger when in fact it its'. Circumcision remains a good remedy for diseases and it is known to be extremely painful at adulthood!

LagosShia: where is the moderator? an Islamic forum is turned into a pub where people talk like when they are drunk.

Fact; most people in the pub at most times are not drunk. Drinking alcohol is not = being drunk.

The only person, that went out of line was the person who called you an idiot. One person.



Being on topic. Circumcision affects all the three Abrahamic religions. It is not a persecution of muslims. Furthermore, circumcision is neither good or bad. I am on the fence on this one

This ruling has opened up a can of worms and the boundaries of what children are legally entitled to will be brought forward. That is uncharted territory. But first, LagosShia was over zealous to allege Muslim persecution based on the allegations of another, a jew, whom he wouldn't have quoted if he had said something less palatable, even if true.

I think the Germany court was looking at the basis of their fundamental laws protecting children than religious inclination. By the way Christians will be affected too.

I think the ruling hurts the Jews more because their ritual is time bound unlike the Muslims.

If one looks at circumcision for medical reasons eg to help prevent the spread of hiv aids. How would the ruling be juxtaposed with that, moreso when WHO says that circumcision is now a preventive action against the spread of aids. Can a jew, a Christian or a Muslim or any german demand circumcision on that basis? For the christians and Jews, it will be a sin to lie but the Muslims have Al-taquiya to rely on. So that is a possible escape route.

The German state is gradually eroding the rights of parents to make decisions for the physical and spiritual well being of their children. Soon what you give children will come under scrutiny. Or maybe whether you can even teach religion to your kids (until the reach an age where they can choose) na wah! Lol

tiarabubu: This ruling has opened up a can of worms and the boundaries of what children are legally entitled to will be brought forward. That is uncharted territory. But first, LagosShia was over zealous to allege Muslim persecution based on the allegations of another, a jew, whom he wouldn't have quoted if he had said something less palatable, even if true.

from the report isn't it obvious it is targeted at Muslims? and this isn't the first time it is happening in europe.from banning minarets in switzerland,stopping halal food in schools in france when sarkozy was in power,banning the veil and prohibiting hijab in public places,what is all that?

I think the Germany court was looking at the basis of their fundamental laws protecting children than religious inclination. By the way Christians will be affected too.

I think the ruling hurts the Jews more because their ritual is time bound unlike the Muslims.

If one looks at circumcision for medical reasons eg to help prevent the spread of hiv aids. How would the ruling be juxtaposed with that, moreso when WHO says that circumcision is now a preventive action against the spread of aids. Can a jew, a Christian or a Muslim or any german demand circumcision on that basis? For the christians and Jews, it will be a sin to lie but the Muslims have Al-taquiya to rely on. So that is a possible escape route.

you're not serious.what does taqiyyah have to do with this? are you referring to the TAQIYYAH AND OUTRIGHT LYING AND DISHONESTY IN THE BIBLE? and besides,the people that steal the most,rob and lie are christians.i am talking of personal experience and not reports and polemics.i read through your words,but you still found a way to provoke and attack muslims.is that a sickness?

as for the HIV prevention excuse,the germans can tell you that babies dont have sex.so they still have to wait till they are 14 year old to decide whether to be circumcised or not.

The German state is gradually eroding the rights of parents to make decisions for the physical and spiritual well being of their children. Soon what you give children will come under scrutiny. Or maybe whether you can even teach religion to your kids (until the reach an age where they can choose) na wah! Lol

or whether you can pierce a girl's ears too.ridiculous!

code: 328565 Date: 2012/07/12 - 11:23 source: Cornwall

England: Vandals targeted Islamic centre in Truro with neo-Nazi graffiti

The graffiti that appeared over the weekend included a reference to C18 – a neo-Nazi group with links to extreme violence.

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - RACIST graffiti has been daubed on an Islamic centre near Truro.

Swastikas and a symbol representing a violent neo-Nazi group were scrawled on the walls of the converted Methodist chapel at Quenchwell near Carnon Downs.

The venue was repeatedly targeted four years ago when vandals nailed a pig's head to the door and fire-bombed the building.

The graffiti that appeared over the weekend included a reference to C18 – a neo-Nazi group with links to extreme violence. Disturbingly the 18 in its name is derived from the initials of Adolf Hitler with A and H as the first and eighth letters of the alphabet.

The vandals also daubed CFC on the wall, for Chelsea Football Club, whose captain John Terry was in court this week for an allegation of racially abusing Queens Park Rangers' player Anton Ferdinand. Mr Terry denied the charge.

Restaurateur Tipu Choudhury, the owner of the Cornwall Asian Islamic Centre, declined to comment.

Police confirmed they were investigating the attack but would not comment further.
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=328565

[img]http://abna.co/a/uploads//215%5C0%5C215098.jpg[/img]

US Muslims cautioned about Mosque attacks

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20120809/geraphian20120809210926500.jpg[/img]
A firefighter works to extinguish the smoldering remains of the Islamic Society of Joplin mosque in Missouri on August 6, 2012.

Thu Aug 9, 2012 9:43PM GMT

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) has warned Muslim communities to be extra vigilant after a recent rise in mosque attacks in the US.


"We felt it was necessary to put something out there," Cair’s spokeprson Ibrahim Hooper said on Thursday, adding that mosques in isolated communities were more vulnerable to acts of violence.

The warning came after a man, armed with a hammer, was caught on video apparently destroying a sign at a mosque in Rhode Island on Tuesday.

On Monday, a mosque in Missouri was completely burned to the ground in a suspected arson attack.


The incident came a day after a deadly shooting at a Sikh temple in the Milwaukee suburb of Oak Creek in Wisconsin, which took the lives of seven people.


The suspect was identified as Wade Michael Page, a former US Army trooper with reported links to the white supremacist movement.

PG/HN
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/255401.html