[Update: I’ve fixed grammar in the opening sentence. Also, the comments provide a critique and clarification on my point about Islam as it may or may not relate to this proposal.]
I suspect Danish politicians are proposing a ban on male child circumcision because it’s an accepted part of Islam. That’s the wrong approach, since individual rights achieve the same results without intentionally creating hostility to faith. As long as sanity prevails in the (potential) implementation, the risk is small.
For a thread of comments on this topic, I spent part of my weekend commenting at Amy Alkon’s Advice Goddess Blog. I can’t say I’m surprised by what’s been written there, but Ms. Alkon and a few commenters have been logical and accurate in assessing the issue. I recommend the thread because there are many examples of the thought processes leading to infant circumcision that I’ve written about.
About the proposed protection of children itself, it would apply to males under the age of 15, the age of majority for bodily decisions in Denmark. It’s entirely sensible and consistent with principles of liberty. Naturally, some people oppose it.
While the Social Democrats, Red-Green Alliance and Liberal Alliance have come out in support of a ban, the Danish People’s Party called it ‘tyranny’.
‘It’s completely ridiculous to compare the circumcision of girls – which is a barbaric mutilation – with that of boys, where it’s just the removal of a skin flap,’ said the party’s Jesper Langballe.
I don’t expect much from any group “People’s Party”, and this doesn’t disappoint. Unfortunately. Ethically, male and female genital mutilation are the same violation. But the issue always gets stuck at the physical results. Anyone who thinks that all FGM is the most extreme version is uninformed, especially if that person doesn’t recognize that anti-FGM laws make no such distinctions about results. (Again, correctly, as I’ve stated many times.) Anyone who thinks that the foreskin is just a “skin flap” is also uninformed. Langballe achieves a perfect score, I suppose.
Yet, the Danish People’s Party’s health spokewoman, Liselott Brixt, gets it right.
‘A lot of parents want it done to their children because they themselves had it done. But we’re living in the present and it isn’t fair to expose healthy children to religious circumcision.’
Healthy children is a reasoned fact. Religious adherence requires faith. One need not reject faith to recognize that it is not a reasoned approach to medical intervention. The latter must prevail because human rights belong to the individual.
Do you really think there is a ulterior motive here?
Gut feeling, yes. The growth of Islam in Europe is a concern for many. I have no evidence, and I trust that Denmark could’ve come to this conclusion without concern for religion. But so few Western countries take a stand on this that I think it would be irresponsible to dismiss the possibility. If there’s anything that will kill the push for equal rights faster, it’s openly despising the religion.
Religious circumcision is not the problem. Imposing it on children is. I’ve encountered enough latent anti-Semitism in the U.S. anti-circumcision movement to not discount similar rationales elsewhere.
I am not sure how you could do this since it is a religious concern for some.
But so few Western countries take a stand on this that I think it would be irresponsible to dismiss the possibility.
True but FGM wasn’t banned since the beginning of time either. Western countries didn’t previously ban it because they never had to face it before. Immigration had a role in banning FGM in the west too. Denmark never had much of a concern over MGM either in much the same way.
Though I don’t discount the thought completely
I am also courious where you’ve seen the antisemitism in the US movement. I’ve only participated like this and I’ve seen overboard comments but I don’t think the organizations themselves are that way.
“Without concern for religion” should’ve been something like “without concern for punishing/exiling a religion.” The religious impact must be considered, but within the context of the larger issue.
The comparison with the political process leading to a ban on FGM is problematic because the ban came so far after public perception in Western countries had turned on the practice. The federal ban didn’t appear until the mid-’90s. As you say, immigration had role in the eventual FGM ban. Before, it was “out of sight, out of mind”. MGM is so ingrained in Western culture as an acceptable legal parental choice that it’s trajectory to prohibition will be different.
As for anti-Semitism, no, the organizations do not have any. They’re genuinely concerned for ethics and medical facts. I’ve heard such comments in person, as well as in overboard comments. The question is whether or not the MPs proposing the ban in Denmark based their decision in any part on anti-religious sentiment. I’ll follow this story, obviously, and if I can find something that even hints that I’m wrong, I’ll admit my bad hunch (and sloppy writing).
Regardless, thanks for challenging me. I needed it.
I am not sure if this really touches on what I was saying. If infant male circumcision is banned, no matter how you go about implementing a ban, I see no way that you won’t be perceived as condemning a religious practice and potentially forcing an exodus as at least a few stories on this issue have suggested. They will construe such a move as a punishment no matter what. It’s like a ball of thorns which, no matter how you grasp it, you’re going to get stuck.
You could create legislation that only bans the secular practice but then you have to ask, “If it is a problem in the secular context, why is it not in the religious?” Meaning if non-religious boys need protection why wouldn’t boys of religious parents? I think it creates a much clearer equal protection claim.
WRT FGM I think the federal ban would have proabably materialized eventually anyway even if there was no indication that immigrants might try to practice it. So I think the thought that it could be going on here hastened the inevitable.
I haven’t spoken in person with others ‘activists’ like you proabably have but I have seen poor comments from time to time which might hint at antisemitism. But I more often see posts that describe any attempt to ban circumcision as antisemitic on its face.
I can’t discount your concern but I am a bit of an optimist on that.
I’ve asked some form of this question several times in the past couple days on boards discussion this ban, including at the site you mention in this post:
And I have yet to not get dodged.
You could create legislation that only bans the secular practice but then you have to ask, “If it is a problem in the secular context, why is it not in the religious?” Meaning if non-religious boys need protection why wouldn’t boys of religious parents? I think it creates a much clearer equal protection claim.
This is my approach. When I write about religious circumcision, I try to make it clear that it’s not circumcision and it’s not faith. It’s exclusively the imposition on another person. The discussion should carry forward from there. I hope the Danes are doing that here.
Of course, some won’t accept the words at face value. They get defensive and assume sinister motives. Those are the responses I no longer worry about. I’m working to refine the argument, but there is a segment of the human population unwilling to deal in objective meanings of words.
But I more often see posts that describe any attempt to ban circumcision as antisemitic on its face.
That’s what I mean from my last paragraph. For a semi-example, here.
I’m an optimist, too, that the reasoned approach will win, although I’ve long said it will be in the courts. American politicians won’t touch anything remotely connected to Judeo-Christian behavior.
Regarding the question you’ve posted on boards, you’ll never get an honest answer. There’s too much defensiveness necessary to excuse past behavior. The closest thing to an answer I’ve ever seen was early in the Advice Goddess thread where the person told me that two deaths are statistically insignificant. It’s a shameful response, but at least it’s an acknowledgment that there are consequences. Most people just plug their eyes and type some nicely worded version of “lalalalalalalalalalala, I can’t read what you’ve written.”