[RestoredIntactivst]

I have not yet confirmed this by a second article, but if it is what it seems to be, this is pretty good news.

: This came to my attention by way of a Google Alert I have set up for "circumcision".

Frankfurt court finds circumcision an unlawful personal injury

a few quotes:

Quote:

A regional appeals court in Frankfurt am Main found that the circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy without his approval was an unlawful personal injury.

Take a second to read that one again.... Why can't more people see this?

Quote:

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."

 

[titania8]

Quote:

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."

while i agree that it is good news overall, the part about peers teasing him does not sit well with me.

: why is that a factor? it should be wrong because its wrong. and that's it.

and as for parents having to get permission, well, yes, i think that will open some eyes (well, it would here anyway) about the nature of this surgery, i don't think it would be very hard for a parent to coerce a child into giving permission. it wouldn't be very hard (imo) to convince a child he would be better of.

but like i said, overall a good message. thanks for posting.

 

[fruitful womb]

Quote:

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."

I'd say its the adult who is trying to determine his identity by forcing a circumcision on a protesting child(ren) or infant(s).

And it says those who tease will be punished. I highly doubt another child would tease a person who was forced into a circumcision. If anything, they would feel really sorry for the kid.

The Germans understand the violation clearly. At least they're on the right track.

 

[Stardust27]

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).

Stardust