Genital mutilation of children: German court rules male circumcision illegal.

[kato]

and what about Jews and other societies?

It doesn't matter whether you do it because social dogma (muslims), your holy books (jews) or medical misinformation (American-Germans) commands you to.

lack of hygene...

See last item of above listing.

[andrew]

You're losing me here. In Peru, Coca (cocaine leaf) tea is legal. Let's say I travel to Peru and drink Coca tea. When I return to the USA, should I be arrested and prosecuted for the act?

Imagine that a pair of American parents took their child to some foreign island and sold the child's kidney there, using the island's loose legal system.
When they return to the USA, should they be arrested and prosecuted for the act?
Or would you let them go with impunity?

[JAD_333]

This article touches on several interesting points:

German court bans circumcision of young boys - chicagotribune.com

Reuters

12:07 p.m. CDT, June 27, 2012

BERLIN (Reuters) - Jewish and Muslim groups protested on Wednesday after a German court banned the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons in the first ruling of its kind in the country.

The court in the western city of Cologne handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of a doctor prosecuted for circumcising a four-year-old Muslim boy who had to be treated two days later for post-operative bleeding.

It ruled involuntary religious circumcision should be made illegal because it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it.

Good God. All operations performed on young children are involuntary. That is, their parents or legal guardians decide for them. If a child had the right to refuse an operation before it reached an age where it understood the implications of refusing an operation is absurd. It doesn't have the maturity or education to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, parents are responsible for their kids' health. Male circumcision, as Big K points out has a hygiene component. The religious aspect is probably rooted in the discovery years ago that circumcision reduced disease in males, just as the danger of eating uncooked pork was prohibited by the ancients. It too often led to sickness and death by what we now know as trichinosis. Cultural habits persist even when they no longer serve any purpose. That is not true of circumcision.

However the ruling, which applies only to the Cologne area, said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation. No age restriction was given, or any more specific details.

So not all of Germany is affected by the ruling. What the heck is a 'conscious' decision for a young boy raised in a religious home? Besides, the older a male gets the more painful and slower healing circumcision becomes.

According to the court ruling, "the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents".

Ok, kids, never mind what mom and dad say. You can just say no to your dentist; no more filling cavities without your go-ahead.

[Parihaka]

There is not even a single shred of evidence allowing for a country to try it's citizens for not breaking another country's law when in that other country. Just because Catholic Ireland does that with abortion doesn't make it right

In fact in New Zealand, New Zealand peodophiles can be prosecuted for child rape when that rape has occurred in other countries. I believe quite a few other countries have that law as well, including the US. So there is precedent.

[Doktor]

[QUOTE=JAD_333;876527]This article touches on several interesting points:

German court bans circumcision of young boys - chicagotribune.com

Good God. All operations performed on young children are involuntary. That is, their parents or legal guardians decide for them. If a child had the right to refuse an operation before it reached an age where it understood the implications of refusing an operation is absurd. It doesn't have the maturity or education to make an informed decision.

From the andrew's post:

circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons

Furthermore, parents are responsible for their kids' health. Male circumcision, as Big K points out has a hygiene component. The religious aspect is probably rooted in the discovery years ago that circumcision reduced disease in males, just as the danger of eating uncooked pork was prohibited by the ancients. It too often led to sickness and death by what we now know as trichinosis. Cultural habits persist even when they no longer serve any purpose. That is not true of circumcision.

I am just guessing here, but the judge might have been presented evidence that hygiene risk is lower then the psychological implications from the procedure.

I must admit that living in a country with ~1/3 of the males circumcised I am not aware that there are psy damages late in the lives of those who foregone the procedure, nor some serious health problems to those who didn't.

Ok, kids, never mind what mom and dad say. You can just say no to your dentist; no more filling cavities without your go-ahead.

Only last year I learned that in many western countries the parent of a minor pregnant girl can't force her to abortion.
Seems like this ruling goes on par.

[Double Edge]

In fact in New Zealand, New Zealand peodophiles can be prosecuted for child rape when that rape has occurred in other countries. I believe quite a few other countries have that law as well, including the US. So there is precedent.

Germany does not follow common law, so there is no use of precedents.

[kato]

If a child had the right to refuse an operation before it reached an age where it understood the implications of refusing an operation is absurd.

If the operation is medically unnecessary it can not be done before the person operated on can agree to it. Or would you want say parents being able to have their 10-year-old girl's boobs enlarged? We have informed consent in Germany, and for surgery that starts at age 18. Once you're 18 you can have any cosmetic surgery you can get a doctor to do.
There are ways around that of course. Doctors operating in grey areas.

Only last year I learned that in many western countries the parent of a minor pregnant girl can't force her to abortion.

Actually not that good an example because technically in Germany abortion is illegal except for rape victims or medical reasons. It just isn't prosecuted if occuring within a certain time after conception.

Furthermore, parents are responsible for their kids' health. Male circumcision, as Big K points out has a hygiene component.

It doesn't have any scientifically proven advantage. Period.

Should be pointed out here that in Germany less than 10% of males are circumcised. And about a third of those purely for medical reasons.

So not all of Germany is affected by the ruling.

The "only refers to Cologne" bit is legally wrong. Germany does not use precedence, as Double Edge points out. Germany uses definition-based law, and the Cologne court set a standard definition that any other court may follow and refer to in the future.

[TTL]

However the ruling, which applies only to the Cologne area, said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation. No age restriction was given, or any more specific details.

What kind of logic is this? If court considers circumcission mutilation why does it allow children to consent? If it does not why ban people from practicing their culture?

[Double Edge]

I was wondering whether Germany allows little girls to wear ear rings ? ie is piercing considered illegal before the age of 18.

[kato]

It's cosmetic surgery. Hence 18 would be the age of full informed consent.

One thing of note: Cologne isn't the first German court to use this definition. It's just the first criminal court to do so. Previous decisions to this effect mostly were about men sueing their parents for psychological damage, or for officials sueing parents for overstepping their custodial rights. The case in Cologne was a criminal case against the surgeon.

ie is piercing considered illegal before the age of 18.

Legally grey area and complicated. Required is the "mental and moral maturity" to consent, which is only a given thing at age 18. Before that it would have to be individually evaluated. The same goes for e.g. tattoos.

Of course you'll always find someone who'll do it for five bucks though.

What might be decisive in this context is that in general for reconstructive surgery on genitals informed consent is only assumed at age 18. That pretty much goes anywhere from having your **** pierced to getting your penis chopped off.

[Double Edge]

Legally grey area and complicated. Required is the "mental and moral maturity" to consent, which is only a given thing at age 18. Before that it would have to be individually evaluated. The same goes for e.g. tattoos.

Of course you'll always find someone who'll do it for five bucks though.

Then some of your immigrants are going to have problems because its very common in my culture for the girls to have their ears pierced when they are babies.

[andrew]

Then some of your immigrants are going to have problems because its very common in my culture for the girls to have their ears pierced when they are babies.

There is a difference here. Circumcision, as now defined by the court, constitutes 'serious and irreversible impairment of physical integrity.'

[Chogy]

Define impairment, please.

Has the German court just declared over a billion males physically impaired? If so, in what fashion?

[kato]

A permanent impairment to physical integrity is anything that removes a part of the body under German law, be it a bit of skin or a bit of flesh. There are severeness stages, with partial or full impairment of sight, hearing or fertility or loss of entire limbs considered more severe than other impairments. The court did not group circumcision with such severe impairments, but more along the lines of being stabbed or otherwise lightly injured.

For parents this may in theory satisfy §225 StGB btw, the definition of criminal child abuse. Minimum three months prison for less severe cases. One could also argue that circumcision may - for a child growing up within German society - cause significant psychological damage, which is considered equal to the above severe health impairment in a lesser case, and is punished with minimum six months prison. Alternatively one could even try argueing that circumcision is an Entstellung - a permanent deformation caused by surgery. After all your penis won't look like everyone else's (in Germany) does. If caused intentionally that's minimum three years prison. Note that the court didn't go for any of these.

[JAD_333]

It doesn't have any scientifically proven advantage. Period.

How do you reconcile your statement above with that of yours below?

Should be pointed out here that in Germany less than 10% of males are circumcised. And about a third of those purely for medical reasons.

The "only refers to Cologne" bit is legally wrong. Germany does not use precedence, as Double Edge points out. Germany uses definition-based law, and the Cologne court set a standard definition that any other court may follow and refer to in the future.

"May" is not "will".

Moving on, do we know whether the judge is circumcised or not.