Judge Says "Forget About Your Rights!"

[Frankly Speaking]

Are a man's rights or family more important?

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=277986




Frank

[1littlebit]

i don't even know what to say.

[mommyminer]

I couldn't even imagine that happening at the age of 19yo! Awful!

[perspective]

So this guy was forcably circumcised, taken off into the woods by a group of men, yet there is no out cry. If this was a girl, you would see international rights groups backing his side of the case, on BBC and CNN you would see this story published, with a few lines of commentary about how backwards South Africa is.

But, its not. Its a guy. So he should just "forget about his rights"...

[Attached Mama]

SICK... just very VERY SICK and SAD

[loveyourohana]

Human rights violation again... only this time its with someone who can fight against it. Good for him for doing so! SICK!

[perspective]

Whats amazing about this case is this boy was taken, and forcibly circumcised by a group of men, including his father, and after he continued to live with his father. Yet all he wanted was an apology, and to make sure that his friends rights will be protected.

A incredibly humble and forgiving request from someone who went through all that he did. Yet even then, the Judge threw out the case. *shakes head in disbelief*

[1littlebit]

i don't understand how the judge threw out the case. isn't that sexual assault.. atleast.

[LavenderMae]

Originally Posted by perspective

Whats amazing about this case is this boy was taken, and forcibly circumcised by a group of men, including his father, and after he continued to live with his father. Yet all he wanted was an apology, and to make sure that his friends rights will be protected.

A incredibly humble and forgiving request from someone who went through all that he did. Yet even then, the Judge threw out the case. *shakes head in disbelief*

: I commend the young man for trying to protect other boys and I am disgusted at that judge.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

i don't understand how the judge threw out the case. isn't that sexual assault.. atleast.

This is the extreme end of the belief that men's genitals are community property. In North America, this belief manifests itself in three statements by parents who choose to circumcise their son.

The first is "It's a parent's right to choose to circumcise." This totally disregards that the child has any rights at all and that he is only property to do with as the parents feel.

The second is "It's what is right for our family." This is a statement that the parents own the child. It is a statement that circumcision of a child somehow benefits the entire family. However, no one but the victim will ever use that penis and no one will be put out by him having his entire genitals. How does the family have any input into it?

The third is "A parent has to make the choice for the child." This is a statement that the parent owns the child's body and it is their right to make a decision on whether the child is allowed to retain a part of his body. This is no longer about any perceived benefit for the child but instead, asserting domain over the child and insuring that the child will have the type of genitals the parent prefers thus ownership.

This case is extreme for the fact that the man was 20 years old. He is an adult in all respects especially since a male is considered an adult at 16 years old in South Africa. That the father forcibly circumcised him is a statement that the father still owned his foreskin and it was his right to do with it what ever he pleased. That the father did not operate alone but with the cooperation of others is a clear statement that the man's foreskin was owned by the community to do with as they pleased.

This extreme view is common in Africa and there are frequent reports of men discovering one of their community is intact and circumcising him in the streets or kidnapping him and taking him to the bush and circumcising him.

Here in The US, this same mentality has been seen. In the case of an 8 year old California boy, the father performed a do-it-yourself circumcision in the bath tub. Only when the boy was bleeding profusely and was in danger of dying was he taken to a hospital for treatment. Charges were taken against the father but the court found him not guilty. The court found the father owned the boy's foreskin and it was his to do with as he pleased.

However in another case, a father wanted to force a circumcision on his 12 year old son. The case worked it's way up to The Oregon Supreme Court which found that the son had ultimate say in whether he was circumcised or not. The case was appealed to The US Supreme Court who declined the case thus upholding The Oregon Supreme Court's decision. But, this leaves some troubling questions. The courts found that a 12 year old could not be circumcised against his will but that leaves all those under 12 years old at risk. What about an 8 year old that voiciferously objects to being circumcised? Or a 5 year old? Is it only a legitimate parental right when the child is pre-verbal and can not let his preference be known?




Frank

[Arduinna]

I don't think it's an extreme view ( if we are using extreme to mean uncommon or surprising and rare). The history of circumcision is all about being part of the community that practices it. It's a mark of membership at it's very foundations.

[tammyswanson]

I signed. Words can't describe how insane this is!

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

The history of circumcision is all about being part of the community that practices it. It's a mark of membership at it's very foundations.

Well I would argue besides the Jewish tradition, the larger practice of circumcision was used to mark a lower class. (Like when Turks took POW's in the 1700's from the British they would circumcise them, and pierce their ears, marking them as prisoners/slaves.

And the entire foundations for circumcision in the west started during the Victorian Era as a way of controlling male sexuality.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

I don't think it's an extreme view ( if we are using extreme to mean uncommon or surprising and rare). The history of circumcision is all about being part of the community that practices it. It's a mark of membership at it's very foundations.

It's extreme as in going to the far edges. For instance, in this country we have the political right and left. To the far left would be socialism and communism. To the far right would be libertarianism and no government at all. The far extreme of the left would be forcing the country into socialism or communism without a vote. The far extreme of the right would be to disolve the government by militia force. As it concerns circumcison, not extreme would be accepting recruits into the culture or tribe with no requirements. Extreme is requiring that they cut off parts of their genitals to become a part of the tribe. Far extreme is forcibly cutting off part of their genitals and forcing them to be a part of the tribe against their will. This is what has happened to this young man. He was kidnapped and forced into the practices of the tribe against his will. He is not a willing member of the tribe but membership was forced on him.

In my estimation, this is not the type of treatment that would be successful in recruiting staunch members and from that point, it is an extreme recruitment method. It is also an unethical recruitment method. Membership of the tribe should be willingly accepted, not forced and that is exactly what happened.

The judge's instruction to "Forget about your rights." is a acceptance that this recruitment is acceptable and a sign that he believe's a man's penis is community property and that community has the right to deprive the man of it. This is at the foundation of any group that circumcises infants, boys, young men or adult men.

In Africa, there have been reports of men as old as in their 70's being kidnapped and taken away to be circumcised. On it's face, this is repugnant to us in America. It is a clear violation of the man's rights in our cultural opinion. But when the man is 20 years old and it is at his own father's hand, it loses some of its repugnancy. When the victim is 12 years old and is at the parents behest, it looses even more of its repugnancy. If the victim is 4 years old, it has lost the majority of its repugnancy and is in the realm of "parental choice." When done within weeks of birth, it has lost virtually all of its repugnancy and is considered an acceptable practice and a private family matter that should not be condemned. But, in reality, what difference does it make whether the man is days old or 70 years old? The man has been physically violated by force and has been forcibly inducted into the culture, clan, tribe or group whether he wanted to be a member or not. To be a member, he has been forced to relenquish his "community property" to the community owners.



Frank

[Haselnuss]

Frank - is it really about males, though? Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that females' rights are protected in this regard while males' are not, but I think this has less to do with there being an idea that males' genitals in particular belong to the community, etc., and more to do with the fact that the idea that everyone's (and especially every child's) do existed in the first place, and only girls eventually escaped this because of feminism. After all, in the US, back when medicalized male circ. was becoming popular, "circumcision" was also recommended for girls, and for similar reasons. Ironically, when feminism heightened our sensitivity to the idea of women/girls being oppressed, it caused us to condemn a form of oppression as "sexist" which actually victimized both sexes - boys slipped through the cracks, because they had no one to stand up for their rights. (The women who were speaking out against FGM should, I suppose, have considered this - perhaps the oversight was due to a dogmatic concept of female as victim, male as victimizer?)
I suppose it's a rather minor distinction, but I thought I'd mention it.

[1littlebit]

how are people not going nuts about this. and that judge needs lose his job.... this man is an adult suing people for kidnapping him and amputating part of his penis... and the frilling judge says he needs to drop it b/c its a family... the fact that it was his family is the worst part. any judge with half a brain would have ruled in favor of this guy... he didn't even want anything except guarantees that his friends would be protected. why would that judge give the green light for these people to keep doing this?

and didn't i read that they did it themselves or did i read that wrong? at least in a hospital it would have been done with proper anesthesia and cleanliness... but a hospital would have needed his consent.. which he didn't give... how many things are wrong with that?

what's wrong with that judge? something isn't right i don't understand how this isn't a huge issue.. i feel like i am missing something.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Haselnuss

Frank - is it really about males, though? Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that females' rights are protected in this regard while males' are not, but I think this has less to do with there being an idea that males' genitals in particular belong to the community, etc., and more to do with the fact that the idea that everyone's (and especially every child's) do existed in the first place, and only girls eventually escaped this because of feminism.

I really don't think females escape can be attributed to feminism. Details about FGM in America are scant and hard to find but it does not appear it was ever a significant trend. It appears that it was mostly limited to the first quarter of the 20th century although it did not absolutely end until the last quarter. The beginings of the feminist movement were basically in the 1960's unless you figure the sufferage movement was the begining. It seems the two are just too far separated for one to have had an influence on the other.

After all, in the US, back when medicalized male circ. was becoming popular, "circumcision" was also recommended for girls, and for similar reasons. Ironically, when feminism heightened our sensitivity to the idea of women/girls being oppressed, it caused us to condemn a form of oppression as "sexist"

The problem with this concept is that female circumcision/mutilation was not generally known to have existed in America from the appearance of feminism in the 1960's. I suspect until the mid 1990's if you polled 10 thousand feminists in North America you might have found one or two that were aware that it had ever happened. Awareness of FC/FGM in North America seems to be an off shoot of the intactivist movement.

which actually victimized both sexes - boys slipped through the cracks, because they had no one to stand up for their rights. (The women who were speaking out against FGM should, I suppose, have considered this - perhaps the oversight was due to a dogmatic concept of female as victim, male as victimizer?)

I have my own ideas of why male circumcision started and why there was no one to stand up for boys but I can't discuss it here.




Frank

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

how are people not going nuts about this. and that judge needs lose his job.... this man is an adult suing people for kidnapping him and amputating part of his penis... and the frilling judge says he needs to drop it b/c its a family...

The judge is simply reflecting community sentiment so he will have full support. Community sentiment is that the father was doing the son a favor in getting rid of that nasty foreskin. Community sentiment is that now that this has been done, the man can be a real man and will be accepted as a reasonable mate for one of the tribal girls.

the fact that it was his family is the worst part. any judge with half a brain would have ruled in favor of this guy... he didn't even want anything except guarantees that his friends would be protected. why would that judge give the green light for these people to keep doing this?

It's the "I/the community knows what is best for you." This is a familiar justification for a wide range of issues. A couple that come to mind were the racial and feminist issues here in North America. Many crimes were committed on the basis of "I know what is best for you." Many peoples rights were abridged to "Do what is best for you." A few years ago, I was talking to one of our State Representatives. I knew he had voted for a very unpopular bill among the electorate and asked him why. He told me without hesitation that he knew what was best regardless of the electorate. I asked him "Tommy, aren't you our State Representative?" to which he replied "Yes." Then I asked him "Well then, exactly who are you representing." He knew he was caught and didn't reply. Judges also think they know what is best for you even though they might be colliding with your rights but they are influenced by community thinking. This same thing is seen in our issue when parents claim a right to their son's genitals and the right to remove part of them. They are saying that they own that part of his body and can deprive him of it and most of the time, the community will agree.



Frank

[cloverd]

Oh my, I had no idea... That poor boy!

[Haselnuss]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

The problem with this concept is that female circumcision/mutilation was not generally known to have existed in America from the appearance of feminism in the 1960's. I suspect until the mid 1990's if you polled 10 thousand feminists in North America you might have found one or two that were aware that it had ever happened. Awareness of FC/FGM in North America seems to be an off shoot of the intactivist movement.

Hm, I suppose that makes sense. I wonder, then, how female circ managed to die out... surely it could have been justified by absurd medical reasons, just as male circ was, would have made the doctors a few bucks, and would have had the same momentum at a certain point (mothers insisting daughters have it done because they did, etc).
Then again, although male circ here has its roots in the victorian era, it doesn't really take off until the 20th century, IIRC... so the real trigger for its popularity has to be later.