Religious Surgery and Children’s Rights
Female genital mutilation (FGM)
Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been illegal in the UK since 1985 and the law was updated in 2003. Despite this, some British girls of Muslim parents are still being sent back to the countries of their parents' origin for this abusive procedure to be done. And, many believe it is even performed secretly in this country. We therefore question why there has not been a single successful prosecution since the practise became illegal. We are concerned that fear of upsetting cultural and religious sensitivities prevents such abuse and bodily harm from being tackled effectively.
Circumcision
All children deserve equal protection under the law, regardless of their gender, and the UK is obliged to ensure non-discriminatory application of its law under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Given that female infants are protected from all forms of genital cutting in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, there can be little argument that the same protection ought to be extended to male children.
The principle behind FGM ban was the protection of girls from any form of genital cutting, no matter how slight or what the cultural background of the parent. There is no legitimate basis for denying such protection to boys.
Circumcision is far from risk-free and affects a significant minority of infants. Scarring, infections, pain on urinating and psychosexual difficulties are not uncommon results of ritual childhood circumcision. In one hospital alone in 2011, 11 baby boys needed to be admitted to the hospital's paediatric intensive care unit with serious, life-threatening complications following circumcision. In February 2012, a baby boy died in North London as a direct result of bleeding complications two days after a ritual circumcision.
A statement of the Royal Dutch Medical Association produced along with seven other Dutch scientific associations including the GPs, paediatric surgeons, paediatricians and urologists concluded that the procedure can be harmful and that it violates the boy's human rights to autonomy and physical integrity.
This position was mirrored by the recent German court ruling which found that non-therapeutic circumcision of male children amounts to bodily injury, and is therefore a criminal offence.
We welcome the development that the lawfulness of child circumcision is being increasingly questioned and that medical opinion in a number of countries is similarly turning against the historic carte blanche afforded to infant circumcision on the basis that the parents' freedom of religion is the only consideration. Instead, it is now being recognised more widely that this non-therapeutic procedure for which there are numerous complications, some of which are very serious, is a breach of children's rights.
We reject the claim that a parent's right to religious freedom, entitles them to decide for themselves whether they wish to have this intervention carried out. Denying parents any entitlement to make such a decision does not constitute any limitation of the parents' right to manifest their religion; the child has rights too, not only to religious freedom, but also to the right to physical integrity. This invasive surgery is non-consensual, non-therapeutic, irreversible, unnecessary and not without risk. We argue that It should be postponed until the boy is old enough to give (or withhold) informed consent.
Find out more
 | Election 2019: Where do the major parties stand on secularist issues?Posted: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:50 Megan Manson studies the election manifestos for the main UK-wide parties – and says religion will continue to be a dividing force in UK politics during the next parliament. Earlier this month the National Secular Society launched a 'secularist manifesto' of 11 policy proposals we want to see parties adopt for their 2019 election campaigns. Since then, most of the major parties have released their manifestos. But how far do they support secularist principles? We've taken a look at the manifestos for four national parties – the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and the Green Party – to see where they stand on various secularist issues. The Brexit Party doesn't call its slim collection of pledges a manifesto because, it says, "the old mainstream parties have made 'manifesto' a dirty word". We examined it nevertheless. We also looked at Labour's 'race and faith manifesto'. We plan to take a look at some of the more regionally-focused parties, such as the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, separately. Religion and schools The first three pledges of the NSS 2019 secularist manifesto are education-focused: No more faith schools, end religious discrimination in school admissions, and abolish the collective worship requirement. Sadly, none of the parties have pledged to end this disproportionate influence of religion in our schools. However, the Greens would bring all academies and free schools under "democratically elected local authorities". Whether this would mean ending the role of unelected religious institutions is unclear. Labour hints at an end to academisation too. The responsibility of education would "sit with local authorities" who would manage admissions and open new schools. Labour also wants all schools to be "subject to a common rulebook, set out in legislation." Again, it's uncertain where this would leave faith schools and faith-based discrimination in admissions. But judging by shadow education secretary Angela Rayner's recent tweet that she'll "never put our faith schools at risk", it seems unlikely faith schools will be rolled back under Labour. Labour's race and faith manifesto pledges to support "religious education about all faiths in all schools". The pledge notably doesn't mention education about nonreligious beliefs. The Liberal Democrats want to phase out grammar schools because they add "division to the system", but sadly do not say the same about faith schools. However, the manifesto does suggest a retreat from academies and the re-introduction of community schools. So while the Lib Dems have not said they will phase out faith schools, they don't explicitly include faith schools in their plans for education either. It's a pity that their long-standing commitment to ending collective worship and discriminatory school admissions wasn't mentioned at all. The Brexit Party wants to "further expand parental choice" by increasing academies and free schools – which would be likely to mean more faith schools. Reforming the House of Lords Removing the 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords is one of our major campaign goals. All parties we examined – except one – pledged changes to the House of Lords that could entail the abolition of the bishops' bench. The Lib Dems and Greens would create an elected House of Lords. Labour and the Brexit Party would abolish the House of Lords altogether, with Labour replacing it with a "Senate of the Nations and Regions". The one exception is the Conservative Party, which seemingly has no plans to reform the House of Lords. Inclusive relationships & sex education The provision of mandatory, LGBT+ inclusive relationships & sex education (RSE) has been one of the big talking points in education this year. Both Labour and the Lib Dems support mandatory LGBT+ inclusive RSE, although they do not specifically say if parents will retain the right to withdraw children from sex education, or if faith schools will still be allowed to teach RSE "within the tenets of their faith". The Greens have gone a little further, saying they will "end the opt-out of LGBTIQA+ inclusive PHSE classes", which presumably means they would end the parental right of withdrawal. Freedom of expression Promoting free speech as a positive value is another NSS policy proposal. The Conservative manifesto appears particularly strong on this. It says the Tories will "champion freedom of expression and tolerance, both in the UK and overseas". It also emphasises freedom of expression online, in the press and in universities. The Brexit Party also pledges to protect free speech at universities, while Labour supports a "free and fair press". The Lib Dems would also protect whistleblowers and reporters on human rights abuses. The Green Party says it will "protect the right to peacefully protest", but other aspects of their manifesto could potentially chill free speech – particularly proposals to establish new regulatory regimes for both the press and online media. Labour's race and faith manifesto highlights its adoption of the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia, which has the potential to inhibit free speech about matters of fundamental importance. The Lib Dems have also adopted the Islamophobia definition. The race and faith manifesto also says Labour will "ensure the views of communities with or without faith are respected and protected across our society". While it is refreshing to see those "without faith" getting a mention, this phrasing could chill free speech. People should be respected and protected, but not "views". Views should always be open to criticism or ridicule. Equality & human rights The Liberal Democrats' manifesto places a particular focus on this area. It says "human rights are global" and that championing the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights will be "priorities". Most welcome of all, the Lib Dems would outlaw caste discrimination. This is one of the policy proposals in the NSS's secularist manifesto. The Lib Dems place particular emphasis on defending LGBT+ rights and equality, which are referenced throughout the manifesto. This would include developing a strategy for promoting the global decriminalisation of homosexuality, and improving support for LGBT+ asylum seekers fleeing persecution because of their sexual orientation. The Labour manifesto also emphasises LGBT+ rights. It pledges to "eliminate remaining areas of discrimination in law," which is encouraging if it includes exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 that allow religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT+ people. Labour would appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues. The party would also create a "Department for Women and Equalities" to ensure all policies and laws are "equality-impact assessed". Its policies on human rights have an international focus, and would include appointing human rights advisers to work across the Foreign Office. The Conservatives say they want people's rights to be respected and for all to be "treated with fairness and dignity". They will "reject the politics of division". However, they will also "update the Human Rights Act" to ensure there is a "proper balance" between "the rights of individuals", "national security" and "effective government". This could be concerning if religious groups try to exploit an erosion of protections for human rights. Although they place less emphasis on LGBT+ equality than Labour or the Lib Dems, the Tories will "combat harassment and violence" against LGBT people and will host the UK government's "first ever international LGBT conference". Like the Lib Dems, the Greens will "retain the Human Rights Act" and "reaffirm the UK's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights". Freedom of religion or belief The fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief includes the nonreligious. Sadly, this has been largely ignored by most parties, despite the continued oppression and persecution of nonreligious people. The Tories say they will "protect people from physical attack or harassment" for their "religion" and will "combat harassment and violence against all religious groups". They also "seek to protect those persecuted for their faith". In all of these statements, commitments to the rights of the nonreligious are conspicuously absent. In its race and faith manifesto, Labour makes repeated pledges of support for the rights of religion and faith groups with very little attention given to the rights of the nonreligious. It says people should have the opportunity and means to fulfill their potential whatever "your faith or religious belief". Why the inclusion of the word "religious" before "belief"? Both Labour and the Greens pledge to defend the right to wear religious clothing and other faith symbols. Parties that say this shouldn't ignore the fact that some "religious clothing" is imposed upon the wearer to comply with misogynistic 'modesty codes'. They should remember it may not be appropriate to wear particular items of religious garb at all times (such as an Islamic face veil in a courtroom, or a Sikh kirpan sword in a place where high security is necessary). The Lib Dems pay a little more attention to those of no religion. They pledge to "protect, defend and promote human rights for all", including "those persecuted for their religion or belief". They also say they will "appoint an Ambassador-level Champion for Freedom of Belief", which again seems reassuringly inclusive of the nonreligious. All parties have pledged to protect places of worship from hate-motivated attacks, apart from the Brexit Party. Reproductive rights The right to safe and legal contraception and abortion services is still subject to attack by religious institutions. The Lib Dems have the most to say about reproductive rights. They believe "everyone has the right to make independent decisions over their reproductive health without interference by the state" and that access to reproductive healthcare "is a human right". They will decriminalise abortion across the UK, retain the existing 24-week limit and legislate for access to abortion facilities within Northern Ireland. They would fund abortion clinics to provide their services free of charge to "service users regardless of nationality or residency". Finally, they would make "intimidation or harassment of abortion service users and staff" near or outside clinics "illegal". Labour would also decriminalise abortion and say women in NI "should have access to abortions in Northern Ireland". The Green Party would extend the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights to give women in all EU countries "access to legal, safe and affordable abortion services." Genital cutting & forced marriage Female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage are two forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG) that are partially motivated by religious teachings. All parties with the exception of the Brexit Party make commitments to tackling all forms of VAWG. Labour and the Greens say they will make misogyny a 'hate crime'. The Tories, Lib Dems and Greens make direct reference to tackling FGM. The Tories are the only party who refer specifically to ending forced marriage. None of the parties made any indication that they would examine the harms caused by male genital cutting, i.e. non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Marriage reform The NSS campaigns for separation of religion and state in marriage law, and to ensure equality and fairness in marriage. The Lib Dem manifesto is the only one that mentions reforms to marriage law in England and Wales. Strikingly, the Lib Dems would enable the Church of England and Church in Wales to conduct same-sex marriages, presumably by removing the common law legal duty on Anglican clergy preventing them from marrying same-sex couples. They would also extend "limited legal rights" to cohabiting couples, which may help protect the many Muslim women in Islamic nikah relationships that are not legally recognised. The Lib Dems would also introduce "legal recognition of humanist marriages". While some Humanists may celebrate this, legalising Humanist marriages would not tackle the problem that marriage law is overly complicated and unequal depending on what religion or belief you have. It may even exacerbate the problem by adding yet another set of laws for a specific religion or belief group, rather than ensuring everyone regardless of religion or belief marries under the same laws. Non-stun slaughter Although all the parties make pledges to protect animal welfare, none have indicated they will end the religious exemptions to animal welfare law requiring all animals to be stunned before slaughter. Labour is particularly disappointing. It says it will protect "production of kosher and halal meat". No kosher authorities in the UK accept meat from stunned animals as kosher, which means Labour will support the religious exemptions to non-stun slaughter. The Greens, who are usually very concerned by animal welfare, pledge to defend the right of religious people to "express their faith" through food. This hints that they too condone non-stun religious slaughter, even though it entails a high degree of unnecessary animal cruelty. This prioritisation of religious demands over animal welfare comes a year after a Green councillor voted to continue supplying non-stun halal meat to local schools. However, the Greens also say they would introduce mandatory labelling for meat showing method of production. This should mean any meat slaughtered without stunning would at least be labelled as such. Secular public services There has been a recent drive to contract out the provision of public services, resulting in many more religious organisations seeking to become service providers. Both Labour and the Greens would increase funding to local public services, with Labour ending the current presumption in favour of outsourcing public services to "introduce a presumption in favour of insourcing". Where services are provided by the private sector, Labour would also ensure they have "effective equalities policies" in place. A preference for insourcing and measures to guarantee equality would both help to counter any potential negative consequences of outsourcing to religious groups. One potentially problematic pledge in the race and faith manifesto is to "improve coroners services to ensure they meet the needs of faith communities", including "'out of hours' services" and "minimally invasive autopsies to ensure quick burials when required by faith communities". Such a bespoke service to meet religious demands would undermine the principle that public service provision should be secular and fair and treat everyone equally. This pledge is doubtlessly a response to the case of coroner Mary Hassell, who was forced to change her 'first come, first served' approach to her job after a sustained campaign from Jewish groups in particular. Counter-extremism Both religious and far-right extremists pose a serious threat to secular democracy. The Conservatives make several pledges to combat extremism, including ensuring that those who work in counter-extremism are "protected from threats and intimidation". This would be good news for prominent figures like Sara Khan, the lead commissioner for counter-extremism who has faced "abuse and threats from Islamist, far right and hard left extremists." The Tories also say they will "ensure that extremists never receive public money," although they do not say how. The NSS has proposed removing "the advancement of religion" as a charitable purpose as a good place to start. Religious extremists can easily register as a charity under "the advancement of religion" and gain all the tax breaks and gift aid that charitable status confers. No party has pledged to change this. The Lib Dems would "work with international partners to tackle violent extremism" and pay special attention to UK citizens who have joined overseas terrorist organisations and may be significant sources of terrorist activity "if they return to Britain". Labour calls the Tories' current measures against radicalisation a "failure". It says it will review the Prevent programme and consider "alternatives". It would also commission an independent review into far-right extremism. The Greens would replace Prevent with "community cohesive policing" which "engages rather than antagonises" minority ethnic communities. Holding the parties to account In summary, no party shows a consistent commitment to secularism as a principle. While disappointing, this is not surprising given the current climate of division and identity politics. The general lack of willingness to confront religious groups in these manifestos is a reminder that it will be important to hold the parties to account for any backsliding in the face of religious pressure during the next parliament. And it's also a reminder of the need to promote secularism as a unifying force that upholds equality, freedom and fundamental human rights for all, regardless of religion or belief. |
 | Election 2019: pledges that should be in the parties’ manifestosPosted: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:30 As the UK's political parties consider their manifestos for the upcoming election, NSS chief executive Stephen Evans outlines a series of secularist pledges they should include to advance freedom, fairness and equal citizenship. The UK today has more religious diversity than ever before, and, for the first time, a non-religious majority. Yet the formal relationship between religion and the state has remained more or less unchanged in the past century. Reform is long overdue. This election provides an opportunity to put an end to a number of anachronistic religious privileges and rethink religion's relationship with the state. The 10 policy proposals below would promote a freer, fairer society where everyone has common rights and responsibilities regardless of religion or belief. 1. No more faith schools. Faith schools have a negative impact on social cohesion, foster segregation of children on social, ethnic and religious lines, and undermine choice and equality. They also enable religious groups to use public money to evangelise to children. Children from all faith and belief backgrounds should be educated together and allowed to develop their own beliefs independently. All parts of the UK should therefore move towards a more secular and inclusive education system. A pledge not to open any more state-funded faith schools would be a tangible first step towards building a more inclusive and cohesive society. 2. End religious discrimination against pupils in school admissions. No child should be discriminated against because of their parents' religious beliefs. Yet Equality Act exemptions permit many faith schools to give preference to children from families that share their religion. They can even choose to give preference to families from any religion over those with none. One of education's most powerful features is the ability to bring people together and to open opportunities for our children, no matter their background. What sort of message do our schools send when they discriminate based on religion? Faith schools should be stripped of their ability discriminate against pupils in admissions – and against teachers in employment, too. 3. Abolish the collective worship requirement. The law requiring children at all maintained schools "on each school day take part in an act of collective worship" is as ridiculous as it is outdated and unjust. Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar laws. Even in schools with no religious designation, the worship must be "wholly or mainly of a Christian character". Laws that impose worship in publicly funded schools are an anachronism and need to go. Instead, there should be a duty on schools to ensure that assemblies are respectful and inclusive of all pupils, regardless of their religion or belief, including non-belief. The same should apply to religious education which should be suitably reformed to ensure it is never used to indoctrinate or promote a particular worldview. 4. Promote free speech as a positive value. A healthy democracy is underpinned by the fundamental human right to free speech. It should be protected. The conflation of criticism or mockery of religion with 'hate speech', coupled with a burgeoning culture of offence, is threatening everyone's right to speak freely. Parties should begin by rejecting calls to adopt a definition of Islamophobia that defines it as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness". The law already protects individuals against attacks and unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. Rather than helping, this definition is likely to create a climate of self-censorship whereby people are fearful of criticising Islam and Islamic beliefs. 5. End non-stun slaughter. The next government should stop allowing religious considerations to compromise animal welfare. The religious exemption that permits certain religious groups to slaughter animals without prior stunning should be repealed. Ending unnecessary pain, suffering and distress to animals is a reasonable justification for restricting religious freedom. In the absence of a ban on non-stun slaughter, clear method of slaughter labelling requirements should be introduced to ensure consumers can avoid meat from inhumanely slaughtered animals if that's their choice. 6. Review laws on assisted dying. The law banning the terminally ill and people facing intolerable and incurable suffering from being helped to end their lives must be reviewed. The debate over assisted dying in the UK is still unduly influenced by religious dogma. Those with theological objections to assisted dying routinely couch their arguments in secular language, amplifying misleading arguments against it. A full review needs to cut through this and reach conclusions based on evidence, compassion, ethical principles and respect for patient autonomy. 7. End all forms of non-consensual genital cutting. The protections given to female children under laws prohibiting FGM should be extended to male and intersex children, so they are equally protected against non-therapeutic, non-consensual genital surgery. No-one, regardless of age, sex or religious or cultural background, should undergo non-therapeutic surgery without their express consent. Religious freedom isn't a licence to violate the rights of others. 8. Outlaw caste discrimination. The next government should ensure there is appropriate and proportionate legal protection against unlawful discrimination because of a person's perceived 'caste'. The research tells us that significant number of people living in the UK are at risk of caste discrimination. Adding 'caste' to the list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act would ensure that caste-based discrimination is explicitly prohibited under UK law and that victims of this form of discrimination have access to effective remedies. 9. End 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose. Unlike the relief of poverty, the promotion of good health, saving lives and protecting the environment, the public benefit of "the advancement of religion" is highly contestable. The promotion of religion is not inherently a public benefit and can sometimes even cause harm to society. Removing 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose would not prevent religious organisations from enjoying charitable status, but would require them to demonstrate a tangible public benefit under another charitable purpose heading. 10. Guarantee secular public services. Public services, especially those funded by public money, should be provided in a secular context, open to all, without discriminating against anyone on grounds of religion or belief. Where religious organisations join others in delivering public services, they should be obliged to do so without discriminating against their employees; withholding services from users on the grounds of religion or sexuality; or proselytising when delivering that service. And one more we'd really like to see… 11. Separate church and state. The next government should disestablish the Church of England and abolish the automatic right of Anglican bishops to sit in the House of Lords. A national religion which retains archaic and unjust privileges is iniquitous to the rest of the population. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment to citizens of all religions and none. The UK's constitution is likely to come under scrutiny in the next parliament. The time has come to get on with it. The NSS has written to all major political parties this week asking them to adopt these secularist pledges in their election manifestos. Image by BedexpStock from Pixabay. |
 | Ritual infant circumcision “morally impermissible”, say expertsPosted: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:59 The religious and cultural circumcision of non-consenting boys is "morally impermissible" and should be considered together with non-consensual female genital cutting, according to a panel of experts. An article published in The American Journal of Bioethics in September says efforts should be made to "protect all nonconsenting persons, regardless of sex or gender, from medically unnecessary genital cutting". Medically Unnecessary Genital Cutting and the Rights of the Child: Moving Toward Consensus says the moral reasons for opposing non-consensual female genital cutting apply to anyone unable to give their consent. The paper argues that under most conditions, "cutting any person's genitals without their informed consent is a serious violation of their right to bodily integrity". "As such, it is morally impermissible unless the person is nonautonomous (incapable of consent) and the cutting is medically necessary." It also warns of a "collision course" in Western countries, owing to the disparity in legal protections afforded to boys, intersex children and girls. The article says "the ethics of female, male, and intersex cutting must be considered together". It says all are "medically unnecessary" acts of genital cutting, performed mainly on young children "on behalf of norms, beliefs or values that may not be the child's own". The paper also raises a recent US federal court case in which a judge said a law prohibiting female genital mutilation did not protect children in a non-discriminatory fashion, as it was specific to girls only. National Secular Society campaigns officer Megan Manson said the article "should prompt policy-makers to seriously reconsider the current widespread acceptance of non-medical circumcision on non-consenting boys". "Experts who have carefully considered the ethics of genital cutting have once again concluded that non-consensual, non-therapeutic male circumcision is no more morally permissible than cutting girls' genitals. "As the harm caused by male circumcision becomes increasingly recognised, we should broaden the legal protections that girls already have to all children, regardless of sex or religious background. Female, male and intersex children should all have the same basic human right to bodily integrity. "And this is also a reminder that extending the protections would strengthen them. If we continue to treat genital cutting inconsistently, we can expect advocates for FGM to continue to argue for the 'right' to cut girls as well as boys." The paper's authors
Image by Thorsten Frenzel from Pixabay. |
 | Ep 15: 'Islamophobia' definition | Criticising infant circumcisionPosted: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:59 Emma Park speaks to Stephen Evans, CEO of the NSS and Chris Sloggett, communications officer, about the NSS's opposition to a definition of 'Islamophobia' which was proposed by a parliamentary group in November 2018. Chris and NSS campaigns officer Megan Manson also join Emma to discuss two recent rows relating to infant circumcision. Megan highlights a court case in which a Nigerian Christian woman, Martina Obi-Uzom, was given a suspended sentence for having an infant boy circumcised without his mother's consent. And Chris discusses a speech by the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, in which he asked secularists and Humanists to stop campaigning against faith schools and infant circumcision. Watch this episode on YouTube | Direct MP3 Link | Transcripts Notes You can follow Emma on twitter, @DrEmmaPark Islamophobia Defined – the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims A woman is convicted over circumcision. What happens next?, NSS blog by Megan Manson The chief rabbi has made an anti-democratic attempt to shut down criticism, NSS blog by Chris Sloggett |
 | The chief rabbi has made an anti-democratic attempt to shut down criticismPosted: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:47 The chief rabbi has asked secularists to stop campaigning against practices such as faith schools and infant circumcision. His apparently polite request should be firmly rejected, says Chris Sloggett. The chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has used a speech to an interfaith conference to claim "Humanism" is becoming "ever-more combative in the way in which it regards faith communities". His soft and carefully worded address was not so much an attack as a lament. Jewish tradition, he said, drew heavily on humanist principles (with a lower-case 'h'). So what a shame that "Humanists" (upper case 'H') and other secularists - presumably meaning the National Secular Society, given the name-check he gave us - made arguments which the rabbi did not like. Mirvis highlighted campaigns against two religious privileges in particular: faith schools and ritual infant genital cutting. And it's firstly worth noting how thin his arguments in favour of these practices were. He claimed those who campaign against faith schools were "in effect campaigning against my freedom to raise my children in accordance with the tenets of my faith". This only holds true if you think that freedom extends to expecting the state – funded by taxpayers from all religious backgrounds and none – to provide support for those schools. The rabbi's line suggests there are credible campaigns to stop religious people from being allowed to take their children to synagogues, churches or mosques in their free time. It hardly needs saying that this isn't the case. On circumcision, Mirvis noted comments made by NSS chief executive Stephen Evans. He quoted Stephen saying: "The demand for religious freedom to be respected is often little more than a demand for the state to turn a blind eye to the violation of other's rights and freedoms when done in the name of religion." (Readers can make up their own minds over whether Stephen has a point.) He then said circumcision was "an essential part of our existence" for Jewish men and claimed: "An attack against our right to perform circumcision is an attack against a most fundamental element of our belief." But this suggests the boy being circumcised is also the one practising the belief – rather than a child having someone else's religion irreversibly and painfully imposed on him. Nor did the rabbi engage with reasonable criticisms of the practices he defended. Consider the case against faith schools: the state shouldn't endorse the idea that religion is inherently worthy of respect; children shouldn't be encouraged to identify themselves with religious labels; society shouldn't be segregated between different religious groups. Mirvis didn't respond to any of these points. And on circumcision, he didn't acknowledge that his logic could be used to defend any abusive practice – most obviously female genital mutilation. Instead he simply decried the fact that people made these points at all. And this is where his remarks become alarmingly anti-democratic. Amid his religious allegories, references to "Humanist friends" and flowery metaphors about cricket (we should all be batsmen rather than bowlers, apparently) and symphony orchestras (we are best off playing instruments "together under the baton of respectful cooperation") came the following passage: "If it is freedom you seek, please do not campaign against our freedom to practice our faith. If you are calling for tolerance, please do not stoop to intolerance of faith communities and religious practice. If you wish to prevent religion from imposing its values on our society, please don't do just that, by seeking to impose Humanism on our society." This roughly means "shut up". Or perhaps "please shut up". But either way, the effect is the same. The request not to campaign against "our freedom to practice our faith" effectively asks people not to highlight abusive religious practices or work to end them. The insinuation that criticism of religious groups is "intolerance" is a well-worn reflex which reveals that the speaker cannot win the argument without resorting to illegitimate attacks on those raising reasonable points. And the claim that there is an attempt to "impose Humanism" is a mischaracterisation of efforts to defend the principle that there should be one law for all. The attitude the rabbi articulated poses a threat to values which citizens of enlightened societies should hold dear. And his diplomatic pleasantries shouldn't blind us to that. Religious groups have long sought to shut down debate about their practices and beliefs. When they've failed to win arguments, they've resorted to silencing tactics. And human flourishing has long depended on people being willing to defy them. If the chief rabbi's words are taken seriously, it will become harder to criticise and end religious practices such as infant genital cutting and faith based schooling. If we care about freedom of thought, individual rights and social cohesion, we should instead try to make it easier. This apparently polite request should be firmly rejected. Image: © Brian Minkoff – London Pixels [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons |
 | A woman is convicted over circumcision. What happens next?Posted: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:29 A pharmacist has been convicted for having a baby boy circumcised against his parents' wishes. Megan Manson says the case raises alarming questions over our willingness to defend children's bodily integrity consistently. On Tuesday, Martina Obi-Uzom was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to an 11 month old baby boy. She was entrusted to look after the baby while his parents went away one weekend. During that weekend, she took the baby to London to be circumcised, in accordance with her own Nigerian Christian beliefs. She knew the baby's mother did not want her baby circumcised. So she posed as the child's mother, recruited a man to pose as his father, and convinced a Jewish circumciser to perform the procedure. The case is a particularly horrifying example of the harm caused by imposing one's religious beliefs on another person. That one of the perpetrators has been brought to justice is a positive step for those campaigning for children's rights. But there are still a number of questions unanswered. Why was the sentence so light? Let's not understate the seriousness of what happened. Obi-Uzom took a defenceless baby entrusted to her care to a man who held him down, took up a knife and did painful, irreversible injury to the most intimate part of his body. Had the baby been an adult, this would have been treated as an extremely serious assault, perhaps even a sexual assault, and imprisonment would have been inevitable for the perpetrator. Or had the baby been female, this would have instantly been recognised as child abuse and termed Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which is explicitly prohibited in UK law. In March, a Ugandan woman was sentenced to eleven years in jail for cutting her three year old daughter's genitals. The judge said what she had done was "barbaric, sickening, child abuse". But Obi-Uzom will not go to jail. She was given a suspended sentence of 14 months. She was also ordered to pay costs of £1,500 and a £140 victim surcharge, which seems paltry compensation for amputating part of a person's genitals without consent or medical need. Last month a man was awarded £20,000 for being circumcised by mistake at Leicester General Hospital. Judge Freya Newbery said although the offence merited a prison sentence, "circumstances" meant she decided to suspend the sentence. The judge said she accepted that Obi-Uzom's intention "wasn't to harm the boy" and that she was of "impeccable character". She also said she was a "professional person" and "highly qualified". It will strike many people as bizarre to describe a woman who took a baby in her care to have his genitals cut in defiance of his mother's wishes, and used highly deceitful means to do this, as of "impeccable character". It will also strike many people as irrelevant that she is a "highly qualified", "professional" person; why should one's education and occupation entitle someone to leniency in such a case? It could be argued that Obi-Uzom's profession – a pharmacist – means she should have known better. Her high level of education, which would involve specialist knowledge in healthcare, means she is in a better position to understand the harms and risks of circumcision than the average person, not to mention the ethics surrounding parental and patient consent. Will action be taken against the cutter and co-conspirator? Obi-Uzom is not the only party responsible for cutting the baby's penis. The procedure itself was performed by a mohel; a person who circumcises babies according to Jewish rites. Obi-Uzom presented herself as the baby's mother, and brought with her a man posing as his father. She signed a parental consent form which the mohel accepted at face value. Obi-Uzom is 70 years old. Her visibly advanced age should have at least rung alarm bells for the mohel because it would be highly unlikely for a woman of her age to have had a baby. Why did he accept her as the mother with no questions asked? In addition, we do not know any further details of the man Obi-Uzom recruited to pose as the father. In doing so, he too was party to the non-consensual cutting of a healthy baby's genitals through deceptive means. Will he be facing prosecution? Will Obi-Uzom continue to run a pharmacy? Obi-Uzom is not merely an employee of The Lighthouse Pharmacy. She's the director. Pharmacists must be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC). Criminal conduct, as well as dishonest behaviour and "serious unprofessional or inappropriate behaviour", can result in sanctions from the GPhC including removal from the register. Will GPhC be investigating Obi-Uzom's suitability to continue her profession as a pharmacist, in light of causing grievous bodily harm to a child without his consent and in defiance of the wishes of his parents? Her suitability to remain in a position of responsibility for people's healthcare must be called into question. Why is the parents' consent the central issue, and not the child's? The question we all must ask is why parental consent should determine whether or not non-consensual cutting of a boy's healthy penis is grievous bodily harm. The judge said the lack of parental consent "is what is missing here". She added that circumcision "can only be lawful with the consent of parents". And herein lies the real problem. What's really missing here is the lack of consent from the person being circumcised – the child. Whether or not the parents want the procedure should not be the central issue. In the case of the Ugandan woman sent to jail for FGM, it's clear that she wanted her daughter's genitals cut. But UK law regards FGM as child abuse, no matter how sincerely parents may believe it is in the best interest of their daughters to be cut. And rightly so. At last year's Healthcare & Secularism conference, barrister James Chegwidden argued that non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting children is incompatible with many facets of the law. It's at odds with criminal law because court cases have established that religious reasons cannot be used to justify other forms of physical assault on children, including scarification and flagellation. It's at odds with civil law because it violates the child's right to bodily autonomy. And it's at odds with the laws of freedom of belief and conscience because it ignores that child's right not have his parents' religion imposed on him. The many unanswered questions and unsatisfying outcomes in this case underline the need to urgently challenge non-therapeutic, non-consensual male circumcision. Too many people, for too long, have been painfully and permanently altering boys' genitals without question. The notion that parental consent makes this legitimate flies in the face of our 21st century understanding of human rights. Our laws already protect girls' rights to intact genitals – it's high time we extend that protection to boys. |
 | Ep 12: Circumcision | No OutsidersPosted: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:00 Chris Sloggett spoke to NSS chief executive Stephen Evans and campaigns officer Megan Manson about the recent BBC documentary A Cut Too Far? and the ethics of ritual infant male circumcision. Did the documentary go far enough and is the tide turning against this abusive practice? Also in this episode our head of education Alastair Lichten spoke with Andrew Moffat, creator of the inclusive education resource 'No Outsiders' and speaker at our upcoming Bradlaugh Lecture. Watch this episode on YouTube | Direct MP3 link | Transcripts Notes |
 | Ep 11: Religious charities | Inclusive relationship and sex educationPosted: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:40 Chris Sloggett spoke to Megan Manson about charities which exist only to promote religion and whether these or religious charities which do harm are in the public benefit. Chris also spoke to and Alastair Lichten about protests by religious reactionaries against LGBT inclusive education and what the NSS is doing. Watch this episode on YouTube | MP3 link | Transcripts Notes The podcast discussed our recent new report For the public benefit? The case for removing 'the advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose and our upcoming event the 2019 Bradlaugh Lecture No Outsiders: Reclaiming Radical Ideas in Schools. |
 | Charity law shouldn't support infant genital cuttingPosted: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:45 The existence of religious charities that support and facilitate infant circumcision demonstrates the urgent need to reform charity law, Megan Manson argues. It may come as a surprise to people that cutting a baby's genitals without medical need is considered a charitable activity. The Initiation Society is one such charity that provides this 'service'. It's been registered with the Charity Commission since 1962. It's therefore entitled to tax exemptions, gift aid, and the 'seal of approval' that registered charity status confers. The Initiation Society's charitable objects include "to initiate a Jewish child into the covenant of Abraham" and "to train mohelim and to supply mohelim". Mohelim are Jewish men (or very rarely women) who are trained to circumcise baby boys as part of the Jewish brit milah ceremony. Additionally, there are a number of mosques across the UK that offer a circumcision 'service' as part of their various activities, or maintain lists of local circumcisers. Mosques, too, are usually registered charities as a matter of course. Mosques advertising circumcision services on their websites include The Waltham Forest Islamic Association and Croydon Mosque and Islamic Centre. As the BBC's recent documentary A Cut Too Far?: Male Circumcision demonstrated, increasing numbers of people, including those within Jewish and Islamic communities, are questioning the acceptance of non-therapeutic infant circumcision. It is impossible to deny that the procedure is irreversible and performed without consent. It entails risk of a number of serious complications, including death. And it is extremely painful, both during the procedure and during recovery. It's no wonder that people are increasingly drawing comparisons with female genital mutilation (FGM), which is rightly banned. Dr Gordon Muir, one of the UK's foremost urologists who was interviewed by the BBC, doesn't recognise a difference between infant male circumcision and FGM, saying neither has significant health benefits, both entail loss of genital sensitivity, and both are unnecessary. He said he finds it difficult to understand why female genital mutilation is a criminal offence but infant male circumcision is not. So why are charities facilitating this harmful practice? The answer lies in the inclusion of "the advancement of religion" as one of the 13 charitable purposes recognised by charity law. The Initiation Society is listed under this classification, and no other – revealingly, it is not considered a charity for "the advancement of health or the saving of lives", which is another charitable purpose. It's therefore tacitly recognised that infant circumcision is primarily performed for religious reasons, rather than any supposed health benefits. If the Initiation Society did want to register under "the advancement of health or the saving of lives", it would probably face far more scrutiny from the Charity Commission. According to the commission, charities that register under this purpose must "provide robust medical evidence" of their public benefit, as well as demonstrating their activities "will not result in any inappropriate harm". The Initiation Society would struggle with these requirements. No national medical, paediatric, surgical or urological society in the world recommends routine circumcision of all boys as a health intervention. Increasing numbers of doctors, like Dr Muir, have grave concerns that any of the widely-contested health benefits sometimes attributed to circumcision would still not justify the pain, risk and disregard for bodily autonomy that the procedure entails. As long as "the advancement of religion" remains a recognised charitable purpose, it will be difficult for the Initiation Society's charitable status to be challenged. There is no question that it is facilitating religious activities. In theory this should not in itself be sufficient for charitable status; an organisation must demonstrate that it provides a public benefit in order to be a charity. Unfortunately, as the National Secular Society's recent report into religious charities revealed, the Charity Commission has a blind spot when it comes to the public benefit requirement of religious charities. The commission has been exceedingly vague on what is required of faith charities to demonstrate a public benefit, and has even assured religious organisations that it recognises the 'benefits' of religion are "intangible". In other words, there remains a presumption that something that is religious is inherently beneficial. This is one reason why "the advancement of religion" needs to be removed as a charitable purpose. While it exists, charities that are able to demonstrate they are 'advancing religion' according to charity law will usually be registered with no questions asked – even if its activities are as harmful as circumcision. What's more, by classifying religious circumcision as a charitable activity, the Charity Commission normalises and sanitises a procedure that's increasingly recognised as a serious breach of human rights. The presenter of A Cut Too Far? came to the conclusion that non-therapeutic infant circumcision should not be banned, but should be better regulated to minimise the risk of complications. And some will argue that having charities that train and register circumcisers is beneficial for the same reasons. But no amount of regulation or training will take away from the fact that religious non-consensual genital cutting, be it on boys or girls, is completely at odds our 21st century understanding of medical ethics and the rights of the child. That's why facilitating the practice can never be in the public benefit. That's why our laws do not permit 'regulated' forms of FGM. And that's yet another reason why the advancement of religion no longer belongs on the list of charitable purposes. |
Let’s face facts: FGM has something to do with religionPosted: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:18 Politicians who insist female genital cutting has nothing to do with religion set a dangerous precedent that undermines campaigns to combat it and other religious harms, says Megan Manson. A bill to extend protection for girls at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) is on the verge of becoming law. Thanks to this bill moved by Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, courts will be able to make girls in danger of FGM the subject of interim care orders under the Children Act 1989. This is very welcome news for the many individuals and organisations who have campaigned tirelessly for this change in law to protect girls' right to bodily autonomy. But the discussions surrounding this bill and FGM in general have revealed a strange and discomforting phenomenon: politicians rushing to declare that FGM has nothing to do with religion. During a debate in the House of Commons last week ahead of International Women's Day, Labour MP Liz McInnes said: "FGM is a cultural rather than a religious practice." On the same day in the House of Lords, minister for equalities Baroness Williams of Trafford echoed the sentiment: "Cultural practice is often used interchangeably with religious reasons. In fact, the practice of FGM has nothing to do with religion." MPs continued to flock to religion's defence during the third reading of Goldsmith's bill on Monday. Goldsmith opened the debate, stating: "I said earlier that FGM has no basis in medicine and, despite what we are often told, nor does it have any basis in any religion." He went on: "The practice is often wrongly blamed on Islam—this can particularly be seen on social media—both by extremists who want to justify or, in some cases, even advocate FGM and by others who wish to use FGM as a stick with which to bash the religion itself." MPs raced to join in to defend religion from association with FGM. Conservative MP Simon Hoare added: "It is not the religious requirement of one faith or another". Labour MP Sarah Champion even went one further to say "FGM is not a cultural practice". She was backed by fellow Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan: "I stand here with colleagues from across the House tonight and say that this is not done in the name of any religion—certainly not any religion I know—and nor is it acceptable cultural practice in any culture that I know." These assertions, whatever their intentions, are not only inconsistent with each other; they are inconsistent with the facts. Like any ritualised human behaviour, the motivations behind FGM are multi-layered and complex. But it cannot be ignored that many of those within 'cutting communities' themselves assert that the practice is religious. A 2013 study on FGM in Africa by UNICEF found that in all but one country surveyed, there were respondents who said that it was a religious requirement. While it is true that the majority of Islamic scholars reject FGM, it is important to bear in mind that Islam is similarly diverse as Christianity, with many differing views. A significant number of Muslims do believe FGM is a requirement of Islam. The Shafi'I school of Sunni Islam and the Dawoodi Bohra branch of Shia Islam are two sects that consider genital cutting to be a requirement. The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Sunni have also considered female genital cutting a 'virtue'. In Malaysia, where 93% of women from Muslim families have undergone FGM, 82% claim it is a religious obligation. And FGM is not exclusive to Islam; it is also a feature of some animist belief systems. It's clear that FGM has something to do with religion. So why do parliamentarians go out of their way to deny it? Part of the reason is no doubt well-intended. Using theology to argue FGM is not a religious requirement has been a strategy employed by campaigners within communities that practice FGM to dissuade people from cutting their daughters. But a more worrying reason seems to be a misguided attempt to avoid criticism of religion itself, and other religious practices. More specifically, it shields male genital cutting from similar scrutiny. It's fair to say male circumcision has existed in the UK public consciousness a considerably longer time than FGM. Unfamiliarity with FGM means it's relatively easy to declare FGM has nothing to do with religion without being disputed, because most Brits had never heard of FGM until quite recently. But to argue the same thing for male circumcision would be impossible. Everyone knows about male circumcision, and everyone knows it's a thoroughly religious practice of Jewish and Muslim communities. As the public have grown more aware of FGM, increasing numbers of people are wondering: if forcibly cutting the genitals of a young girl without medical need is deemed illegal child abuse by UK society, why do we excuse forcibly cutting the genitals of a young boy without medical need? In 2018, a YouGov survey found 62% of the population would support a law banning non-therapeutic infant circumcision; only 13% disagreed. The inconsistency in the law regarding female and male genital cutting was addressed by Goldsmith: "A number of colleagues raised concerns about male circumcision as if there were some kind of comparison between the two," he said. "Whatever our views on male circumcision, it must be obvious that it does not compare to FGM." Sarah Champion backed him up: "We often hear this argument comparing the two, but male circumcision, in my experience, is rarely, if ever, done to subjugate the boy, whereas FGM is very clearly done to end women's sexual pleasure." These statements unhelpfully reinforce some common misconceptions about genital cutting. From a basic ethical perspective, FGM and male circumcision are absolutely comparable in that both involve the painful, risky and usually permanent alteration of the most intimate part of a child's body without consent and without medical need. Then there is the myth that FGM is always more invasive than circumcision. This myth ignores the wide spectrum of procedures that come under the classification of 'FGM'. No-one would deny that extreme forms of FGM, in which all external female genitalia are severely damaged or removed in unhygienic conditions, cause greater long-term suffering than mainstream forms of male circumcision. Such procedures frequently result in a life of agony for the victim or even death. But 'milder' forms of FGM, such as those widespread in Malaysia, involve a pinprick to the clitoral hood, sometimes known as the 'ritual nick'. This type of FGM entails a much smaller risk of infection or other unintended complications than other forms, and the amount of tissue damaged is minimal. Nevertheless, along with other forms of FGM, this causes pain and distress to the child and is rightly outlawed in the UK. In contrast, male circumcision always involves the permanent removal of the foreskin. The extent of the damage done by circumcision is frequently downplayed: the child can lose up to one half of erogenous penile skin tissue. The risks and complications of circumcision also tend to be understated. Between 2008 and 2014, more than half a million boys were hospitalised due to circumcision-related complications in South Africa, over 400 of whom died. And in 2011, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of non-therapeutic circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham. Like FGM, there are different forms of circumcision. In some extreme cases practiced in UK without any legal restriction by some ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, the circumciser ritually takes the baby's penis into his mouth and sucks it without regard for hygiene. Finally, there is the common assertion that FGM is done for the purpose of female subjugation. This seems to be the only motivation behind FGM that parliamentarians will agree on: they may say it isn't to do with religion, or even culture, but pinning FGM on the patriarchy is far more palatable. While controlling women's sexuality is perhaps part of the motivation behind FGM, there are a number of problems ascribing this as the sole reason for the practice. First, it should be pointed out that every community that practices FGM also practices male circumcision. There's clearly more going on than simply a desire to control the female sex when the male sex is similarly subjected to unnecessary cutting. Secondly, it is disputable that circumcision is not usually done "to subjugate the boy". One only need look at the history of circumcision in the Anglosphere to find problems with this argument. The US is one of the minority of countries where non-therapeutic circumcision is routinely performed on boys from non-Jewish or non-Muslim families, and a primary reason why it became widespread was because it was thought it would deter boys from masturbation. Boys were therefore circumcised as an attempt to control their sexual urges and behaviour. It can be argued that any form of enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting, be it on women or men, is in itself a form of subjugation and control of the child's body; a symbol that their body does not exclusively belong to them. Finally, systems that promote female subjugation are almost always fuelled by religious ideas about male and female gender roles and the virtues of purity. A society that says women are worth less than men, or that women must adhere to values of chastity and modesty, will invariably point to religious teachings to justify this. If FGM is motivated by a desire to control women, it is largely because of religions that teach women should be controlled. Campaigners have triumphed again and again in their efforts to end FGM. It is thanks to the dedication and determination of anti-FGM activists that, perhaps for the first time, people on a global scale are questioning the right of parents to permanently modify their children's bodies without medical need. But we should be extremely wary of any attempts to excuse the role of religion in infant genital cutting, regardless of the sex of the infant. Insisting that FGM "has nothing to do with religion" sets a dangerous precedent. It reinforces the idea that all religious practices are inherently "good" or at least "harmless", and anything we consider not "harmless" must not be religious. This simplistic and one-sided view of religion makes it much more difficult to scrutinise and criticise religious practices that may not be harmless – including male circumcision. That is what's happening right now. Female genital cutting is contrasted with male genital cutting partly by stating that cutting female genitals is not religious, while cutting male genitals is religious. In turn, this implies that if FGM were religious, it may somehow be justifiable. Insisting that FGM 'has nothing to do with religion' as a reason for its condemnation and prohibition does not merely undermine those wishing to extend protections afforded to young girls to boys. It may ultimately undermine protections against FGM itself. Advocates of FGM have caught on that religion is one of the main arguments shielding male circumcision from scrutiny, and they're pushing the (admittedly logical) argument that what they do to girls in the name of religion should be as equally permitted as what they do to boys. This is particularly prominent among practitioners of the 'ritual nick', who can also argue quite effectively that their form of genital cutting on girls is less invasive than the circumcision they perform on boys. In order to protect children and indeed anyone else adequately in society, our politicians must be brave and willing to openly criticise harmful religious practises. Saying "it's nothing to do with religion" not only shields the truth; it shields the wrongdoers from being held to account, and shields religion from critical inquiry. |
