Update on 'ban on circumcision' in Germany - goverment intervenes

[Qasper]

"Angela Merkel intervenes over court ban on circumcision of young boys - Spokesman says right to circumcision must be restored as a matter of urgency, after Cologne court's ruling against practice"

The Guardian:

Angela Merkel's spokesman has promised Germany's Jewish and Muslim communities they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys, despite a court ban that has raised concerns about religious freedom.

The government said it would find a way around a ban imposed by a court in Cologne in June as a matter of urgency.

"For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert. "Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment."

Ruling in the case of a Muslim boy taken to a doctor with bleeding after circumcision, the Cologne regional court said the practice inflicted bodily harm and should not be carried out on young boys but could be practised on older males who gave consent. The ruling applies to the city and surrounding districts.

Jewish religious practice requires boys to be circumcised from eight days old, and among Muslims the age of circumcision varies according to family, country and branch of Islam.

"It is well known that in the Jewish religion early circumcision carries great meaning, so it is a matter of urgency that this right be restored," said Seibert. He said Merkel's office would be involved in efforts to resolve the problem. "We know a quick decision is needed and that this cannot be put off. Freedom of religious practice is a very important legal right for us."

European rabbis descended on Berlin this week to lobby against the ruling. They plan talks with German Muslim and Christian leaders in Stuttgart next week to see how they can fight the ban together.

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis urged Jews in Germany to continue carrying out circumcision. Pinchas Goldschmidt, the Swiss-born chief rabbi of Moscow, said the ban was a fresh example of creeping prejudice in European law against non-Christians, after a Swiss ban on minarets, French and Belgian bans on Islamic veils in public and an attempted Dutch ban on halal meat.
"Circumcision represents the basis for belonging to the Jewish community. It has been practised for 4,000 years and cannot be changed," he said.

The German Medical Association said it opposed the ban because it could drive circumcision underground with greater risk of infection through poor hygiene, but advised doctors not to carry out the operation until the legal situation was cleared up.

Germany is home to about 120,000 Jews and 4 million Muslims.

So maybe modern Germany isn't after all the 'anti-semite 4th Reich' as proposed by some in the closed old thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...4#post11680704

In future it will be up to parents to decide if their infant boys will be circumcised (as it has always been).

Interesting to see if the global (and also US) drop in the rate of cirmumcitions will continue?

NYT: Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S.
Male newborn circumcision rate falls to lowest level
Circumcision Rates of Newborns Drop Dramatically Worldwide, Except the US

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[athanaric]

the government. It's not their business. Once again Merkel and her minions forget that Germany is supposed to be a democracy.

For anyone who can read German, this is a good and (surprisingly) balanced blog article:
http://boess.welt.de/2012/07/15/gott...dgericht-koln/

[ShockBlast]

Angie is losing it,Sigmar Gabriel for Chancellor of Deutschland.

[mongrel]

the government. It's not their business. Once again Merkel and her minions forget that Germany is supposed to be a democracy.

For anyone who can read German, this is a good and (surprisingly) balanced blog article:
http://boess.welt.de/2012/07/15/gott...dgericht-koln/

Quite an ironic post.


If the German state is happy to preserve Jewish culture, I can only see that as a pleasant alternative to past attitudes.

[removeduser_487563287433]

How is it less democratic for an elected government to overturn the ruling of an unelected judge? Especially when the action was to let people decide?

[athanaric]

How is it less democratic for an elected government to overturn the ruling of an unelected judge? Especially when the action was to let people decide?

Because we have a thing called separation of powers. It means that the government should not interfere with the actions of the other branches.
Moreover, I can't see them calling for a plebiscite, if that's what you're alluding to. German politicians are notoriously afraid of direct democracy, because it might (in their psychotic minds) bring back the Fourth Reich or something like that.

Angie is losing it,Sigmar Gabriel for Chancellor of Deutschland.

He's even worse.

[ShockBlast]

He's even worse.

He is pro family planning that makes him the best by far since Germany`s population is going down and the ethnic Germans even faster.

[s.rwitt]

That's what I was wondering. If it's not the government's business they shouldn't be enforcing a ban.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

That's what I was wondering. If it's not the government's business they shouldn't be enforcing a ban.

the government's job is to protect people and their freedom of choice over their own lives. That should include protection from being forced to have cosmetic surgery as a child.

I mean, nobody would argue for this kind of thing to be done to children, which isn't much different from circumcision. It causes permenant damage to the skeleton that can have severe negative effects in mid and later life:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If someone mature enough to make decisions about their bodies wants to have procedures like this, I don't care. But it shouldn't be forced on children. I quite liberal when it comes to the age of maturity. People can make these decisions in their early teens. But not in early infanthood.

[PointOfViewGun]

the government's job is to protect people and their freedom of choice over their own lives. That should include protection from being forced to have cosmetic surgery as a child.

So, you'd also argue that it's also wrong to name a child, choose which school the child attends or go through with a number of vaccines or hairlip surgery?

People should really stop behaving as personal rights are absolute with no exceptions We only hear their arguments when something alien or inconvenient to them is the subject.

[Facupay]

So, you'd also argue that it's also wrong to name a child, choose which school the child attends or go through with a number of vaccines or hairlip surgery?

People should really stop behaving as personal rights are absolute with no exceptions We only hear their arguments when something alien or inconvenient to them is the subject.

This has been discussed to death, there's a limit to the right parents have over their children. Some people consider one of those limits is the physical integrity of the child, other people consider that limit is whatever a 4000 year old book says about it.

[PointOfViewGun]

This has been discussed to death, there's a limit to the right parents have over their children. Some people consider one of those limits is the physical integrity of the child, other people consider that limit is whatever a 4000 year old book says about it.

Yes, it was discussed to death yet I still see the same ignorant comments. The first two examples have a much bigger impact on someone's life yet nobody has a problem with them. If it was about physical integrity of the child then harelip surgery should be banned for children as well. There are also no mention of vaccines or antibiotics in an old book. Yet, they're also violation of a child's physical integrity.

We're not discussing whether physical integrity/rights of a child should be on the hands of parents or not. It's already is.

Parents have a right to name their child. You are not infringing on a child's rights by giving them a name. however forcing your child to get surgery for religious reasons is.

You are by forcing your child to live with that name for at least 18 years of his or her life.

Can you tell me in what country does this infringe on a child's rights?

Does it have to be in any country? We're not discussing that. It does however affects the life of a child deeply while the child has zero legal right on it.

Vaccines which are supposed to stop you from getting sick. Vaccines for medical, not religious reasons. The medical applications of circumcision are completely disputed and this ban only banned circumcisions on religious grounds.

It doesn't matter what medical reasons you have. You're still violating the physical integrity of the child or whatever you call it.

Thats a deformity. Foreskin is not a deformity.

Deformity doesn't really justify the surgery.

[Vanoi]

So, you'd also argue that it's also wrong to name a child,

Parents have a right to name their child. You are not infringing on a child's rights by giving them a name. however forcing your child to get surgery for religious reasons is.

choose which school the child attends

Can you tell me in what country does this infringe on a child's rights?

or go through with a number of vaccines

Vaccines which are supposed to stop you from getting sick. Vaccines for medical, not religious reasons. The medical applications of circumcision are completely disputed and this ban only banned circumcisions on religious grounds.

or hairlip surgery?

Thats a deformity. Foreskin is not a deformity.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

So, you'd also argue that it's also wrong to name a child, choose which school the child attends or go through with a number of vaccines or hairlip surgery?

People should really stop behaving as personal rights are absolute with no exceptions We only hear their arguments when something alien or inconvenient to them is the subject.

But people can change their names. Allowing a child to mature to choose what school to attend would have a severe negative affect on their life compared to choosing it for them. And not taking vaccines also compromises the safet of others.

[PointOfViewGun]

Maybe in your country. But in my country a child can have his name changed.

Or better yet when they don't like their real name, they just go by a nickname.

A child does not have the mental capacity when he is born to choose his name. Parents must chose a name for the child if that said child wants to get any legal rights like a birth certificate and a social security number.

Anyways i don't see how this is comparable to forcing your son to have a piece of his penis cut off because a book said so.

You're right. In my country a child can not change his or her name without consent from her or his parents. Now, I'm a U.S.A. citizen. I don't know what country you refer to when you say "in my country..."

A child can very well choose his or her name once s/he reaches mental capacity to do so. Forcing her or him to live with a name for years that he didn't choose violates the rights of the child.

And, no. The Jewish and Muslim circumcision does not cut the piece of the penis off. I thought were were over such ignorant points in the last thread.

And why should the child have that legal right? He is not an adult. He is a child. His parents are is guardians. They get to pick the school he goes to because they are

The same argument can very easily be said for circumcision. The parents get to pick whether to circumcise the child because they are.

The choice of school, religious, public, private, big, small, technical or etc, has a much larger impact on a child's life. Probably one of the largest impacts one can ever experience in life. Yet, the child has no say in it whatsoever.

Physical integrity? You can stop trying to argue that with me, because i don't believe in it.

Vaccines are done for purely medical reasons for the well-being of the child. Religious circumcisions is done by a man in the sky said so in a 3000 year old book.

It's not a matter of belief but a matter of fact. Whether you vaccinate a child or give him medicine you're affecting his or her life in the short or long term. The child has no say in whether he or she gets any of these treatments. However huge the benefits are and however slim the adverse effects may be the child still has no say in it whatsoever.

It does when this deformity if not corrected will cause the child to have medical problems.

Nope. Hairlip does not require surgery absolutely. A child can very well survive and have a normal life by simply paying extra attention to this condition.

Parents have the duty to make sure that their son is able to develop fully and live a normal life -don't ask what normal or develop fully means, I don't want to get into a pointless phylosophical debate- so vaccines, to aviod diseases or surgeries to correct deformations or things that would hamper the development of the child are called for, like circumsision to correct a phimosis. However, making a permamnet physical change to the child through a painful operation (just because it's done when it's a baby it doesn't mean it doesn't cause pain) just because, is not called for.

First of all, there is a thing called anesthesia.

Second, then you can easily argue that circumcision is a cultural norm for many people and it is required for these people to develop fully and live a normal life as a part of that culture.

But people can change their names. Allowing a child to mature to choose what school to attend would have a severe negative affect on their life compared to choosing it for them. And not taking vaccines also compromises the safet of others.

They can't go back and change 18 years of their life that they've spend with their names.
You're basically arguing that convenience trumps those same rights that people claim against circumcision. Do you realize how hypocritical that is?

Nope, it's the other way around.

When I started to watch porn I couldn't understand under what horrible condition every actor was suffering from.
It took me a while to make a connection with that think called circumcision I had read about. I still find it ghastly.

You do realize uncircumcised and circumcised penis looks the same when erect? Given the fact that you never see an unerect penis in a porn movie I can only assume that there was a problem with the penis you were comparing porn star penises.

[Yosemite]

why not ask the kid if he wants it?
why shouldn't we let the child grow up and ask if he wants circumcision? why should parents be the ones to be allowed to mutilate their child? why should jews be mad at this? can't they still perform circumcision despite the ban? what were muslims saying? there is no mention of circumcision in the quran, yet all muslims get circumcised.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Right so not about whether it was democratic at all then.

[s.rwitt]

Seperation of powers is specifically designed to allow each branch to interfere with others through checks and balances...

[Thorn777]

Seperation of powers is specifically designed to allow each branch to interfere with others through checks and balances...

Politics and the ruling of law are supposed to be entirely seperated in the Germanic Justice System. In the Anglo-Saxon Justice System its a bit different, and nvm the Roman.

Its highly frowned upon for politicians to take influence like that, and is seen as a powergrab. And right now we also have a very big ruling coming up with the ESM Treaty, around the Euro auto-bailouts, and German politics is very busy influencing the constitutional court, and thats not right.

Principals, federal Germanic democratic principals are going down the drain.

[Mangalore]

Good for them but pulling the "we did it for 4000 years now so it must be good" card sounds rather retarded to me. There should be more modern ways of being jew or muslim than looking at each other's willies. We also considered looting and pillaging places and enslaving women and children completely acceptable until very recently but that was a custom that existed for more than 10 000 years until then.

The court ruled probably correct based on existing law so the government will now have to pass a law that circumcision is somehow that important to religious people that it overrules the protection of individuals. You probably can make that case but it doesn't make much sense from a morale point of view.