German court: Circumcision unlawful personal injury

[pdx.mothernurture]

PLEASE ABIDE BY RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION IN THE CASE AGAINST CIRCUMCISION FORUM IF YOU CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD SO IT DOESN'T GET LOCKED OR DELETED. THANK YOU.

German court: Circumcision unlawful personal injury

Published: 09/21/2007

A regional appeals court in Germany found the circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy to be unlawful.

The Sept. 20 decision in a Frankfurt am Main appeals court found that the boy's circumcision without his approval was an unlawful personal injury. The decision opened the way toward financial compensation for the boy.

The case may have repercussions for the practice of ritual circumcision in Germany by Muslims and Jews. The court suggested, in part, that it was a punishable offense to subject one's child to teasing by other children for looking different.

The boy, now 14, plans to sue his father for 10,000 Euro (about $14,000), according to a report by the German ddp press agency.

Reportedly, the boy, whose parents are divorced, was visiting his father during a vacation when his father forced the ritual circumcision. The boy lives with his mother, who had always rejected circumcision. Muslim boys are traditionally circumcised at elementary school age.

According to the court, circumcision can "be important in individual cases for the cultural-religious and physical self-image," even if there are no health disadvantages involved. So the decision about whether or not to go through with a circumcision is "a central right of a person to determine his identity and life."

The court did not give an age minimum at which their parents must seek a child's permission to perform a circumcision . The amount of damages depends, said the court, on the extent to which the boy suffered long-term physical or emotional damage, or "whether his peers would tease him for looking different."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104271.html

[Arduinna]

So the decision about whether or not to go through with a circumcision is "a central right of a person to determine his identity and life."

Exactly, it is not something that should be forced on anyone against their will.

[mamasophy]

The only part that bothers me here for those in the US is where the court suggested that subjecting a child to possible teasing for looking different is a punishable offense - that could easily be turned around by pro-circers here into an argument FOR RIC.
But I absolutely agree with everything else. This actually sounds awful - forcing a ritual (we're talking unanesthetized?) circ on an 11 year old? Gross.

[phatchristy]

So the decision about whether or not to go through with a circumcision is "a central right of a person to determine his identity and life."

Yep.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

So the decision about whether or not to go through with a circumcision is "a central right of a person to determine his identity and life."

:

[Stardust27]

Reposting my summary of the case from this thread:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=755689


The case as well as the court's statements have been somewhat misrepresented by the JTA article.

The "big" headline "Frankfurt court finds circumcision an unlawful personal injury" doesn't mean anything, unfortunately. Of course, circumcision is an unlawful personal injury, just like any other surgery, piercing or body modification. It only becomes lawful by proper consent.

And that's the point about this case, too. The problem is not the parents giving consent for the non-medical circumcision of their son, the problem is that a non-custodial parent gave consent respectively pressured the boy into agreeing. (This is something that JTA never mentions, creating the impression that the case is about the parental right to agree to circumcision in general.)

Here are the details:
A 14-year-old boy is suing his Muslim father for having him circumcised. The parents are divorced and the non-Muslim mother, who has always opposed the circumcision of her son, has sole custody. When the boy was 11, his father pressured him into agreeing to a circumcision during a holiday stay with him. The boy now wants a compensation of 10.000 Euros and apparently stands a good chance to win, because his father didn't have the right to give consent to surgery and the boy himself was too young to give it, too (it would have been different if he had been 14 at the time).

The court raises (but points out that it doesn't answer) the question "whether consent for circumcision is generally included in the custodial rights of Muslim parents, and if it is, up to which age of the child."

I'm willing to place a high bet that this particular question won't be answered anytime soon by any German court. Sorry for having to burst the bubble, but Germans in general don't understand the violation clearly (or if they do, prefer to keep their eyes and mouths shut about it).


PS:
"(we're talking unanesthetized?)"

Don't know. It might have been, if it was done somewhere abroad, like Turkey. Generally, however, the term "ritual circumcision" in Germany is more about the reasons than the circumstances. If it's done for cultural/religious reasons, it's "ritual", whether it's done in a traditional way or in a "technical" way in a hospital.

BTW, we haven't heard anything about the case since.

Stardust

[perspective]

Putting all the other arguments aside, this case points out one of the most important reason for why male circumcision should be illegal. Everyone has the right to have control over their own body. And even pro circs cannot disagree with this case. For every boy that stands up and tries to protect their body from countries ad cultures that refuse to, who knows how many more go unheard.

I dont care what your opinion is on circumcision is. No one should have to go to court to stop someone from cutting off a part of their body. This is just the reason why female circumcision was made illegal in the United States. I just cant see why more governments dont see this huge hole in their laws. I just cant see how people dont look at this case and ask, wait, why should this boy have to fight to keep his own body in the first place?

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Exactly, it is not something that should be forced on anyone against their will.

:

I agree.

[Mommiska]

Originally Posted by perspective

Putting all the other arguments aside, this case points out one of the most important reason for why male circumcision should be illegal. Everyone has the right to have control over their own body. And even pro circs cannot disagree with this case. For every boy that stands up and tries to protect their body from countries ad cultures that refuse to, who knows how many more go unheard.

I dont care what your opinion is on circumcision is. No one should have to go to court to stop someone from cutting off a part of their body. This is just the reason why female circumcision was made illegal in the United States. I just cant see why more governments dont see this huge hole in their laws. I just cant see how people dont look at this case and ask, wait, why should this boy have to fight to keep his own body in the first place?

:

[LavenderMae]

I feel really bad for the boy, I am so sorry his father forced that on him

It seems really obvious that no one should have the right to remove a healthy and functioning part of another's body, I don't understand why the foreskin seems to be an exception to that.