Council of Europe “retreat” on circumcision of young boys

Posted: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:50

Jewish and Muslim groups have claimed victory after the Council of Europe 'retreated' over a proposed ban on male circumcision (non-therapeutic excision of the foreskin) and instead recommended that it only be performed by trained individuals.

Religious campaigners had feared that the Council would call for a prohibition on the non-therapeutic circumcision of young boys, and welcomed a resolution passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on religious freedom that "recommends that member States provide for ritual circumcision of children not to be allowed unless practised by a person with the requisite training and skill, in appropriate medical and health conditions", but which does not call for an outright ban on the practice.

While the 'climb-down' has been welcomed by Muslim and Jewish campaigners seeking to defend male circumcision of children, the Council of Europe resolution does make a point of referring to an earlier 2013 resolution which described male circumcision as a "violation of children's physical integrity".

Ofer Aderet, of Haaretz, said "I believe it's a retreat from the previous resolution … because in 2013, circumcision was cast in a negative light along with a string of horrific practices like female genital mutilation whereas the new resolution speaks of circumcision as part of freedom of worship, which needs to be preserved."

PACE is a statutory organ of the Council of Europe dedicated to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Its powers extend only to the ability to investigate, recommend and advise.

The recently passed resolution notes that "Certain religious practices remain controversial within national communities. Albeit in different ways, the wearing of full-face veils, circumcision of young boys and ritual slaughter are divisive issues and the Assembly is aware of the fact that there is no consensus among Council of Europe member States on these matters."

While the Council stresses that circumcision of young boys must be performed "by a person with the requisite training and skill" it does not specify what training is required, or what the "appropriate" conditions for circumcision are.

The 2013 resolution instructed members states to "publicly condemn the most harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation, and pass legislation banning these" but on male circumcision said only that states must "clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices which are today widely carried out in certain religious communities, such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys".

In a statement on the new resolution, the Council called for freedom of religion "without impediment and without discrimination" and it called for "'reasonable accommodations' for controversial religious practices, in particular in the workplace" – language criticised by the National Secular Society.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "We absolutely support freedom of conscience and religion, but the right to religious freedom isn't absolute and doesn't permit believers to manifest their beliefs in ways that infringe on the freedoms, rights or dignity of others. Council of Europe parliamentarians could be much clearer about that."

The Council said that "Religious communities should be able to exercise the right to freedom of religion 'without impediment and without discrimination' and to practise their faith publicly and freely in accordance with their own rites" but added that the principle of politics being independent from religion should be respected.

It also said that "education is the key to combating ignorance" and for building more inclusive societies in Europe.

Court judgement raises questions about FGM and male circumcision in the UK

Posted: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:02

A senior judge has decried the lack of medical experts in the UK with knowledge of female genital mutilation (FGM), particularly in young children.

In a ruling on a child thought by Leeds city council to have been a victim of FGM, the judge, Sir James Munby, described the practice as "evil" and said that "the court must not hesitate to use every weapon in its protective arsenal if faced with a case of actual or anticipated FGM."

Sir James added: "Given what we now know is the distressingly great prevalence of FGM in this country even today, some thirty years after FGM was first criminalised, it is sobering to reflect that this is not merely the first care case where FGM has featured but also, I suspect, if not the first one of only a handful of FGM cases that have yet found their way to the family courts.

"The courts alone, whether the family courts or the criminal courts, cannot eradicate this great evil but they have an important role to play and a very much greater role than they have hitherto been able to play."

The judge said that FGM was "an abuse of human rights" that had "no basis in any religion."

In his ruling, Sir James sought to distinguish between the severity of different types of female genital mutilation as compared with male circumcision. The judge described the "curiosity" of the law allowing male circumcision whilst it outlaws FGM. Sir James said that law is "still prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms."

The case Sir James was considering concerned the adoption of two children of Muslim parents, named only as G and B.

Difficulties with expert testimony made it hard to determine if the girl had been the victim of female genital mutilation or not, and there was extensive discussion in the ruling over what type of FGM the child may have been subjected to.

Considering whether G had suffered Type IV FGM, defined by the World Health Organization as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization," Sir James found that if "FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision."

Despite finding that some Type IV FGM was comparable with male circumcision, the judge ruled that "'reasonable' parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision", in part because "male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons" whilst "FGM has no basis in any religion." The judge noted that male circumcision was seen by some as "providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits" though accepted that "opinions are divided."

The judge concluded that although "both involve significant harm, there is a very clear distinction in family law between FGM and male circumcision."

Prior to a change in the case pressed by the local authority, the children's case would have depended upon G's Type IV FGM, despite the fact that "on any objective view it might be thought that G would have had subjected to a process much less invasive, no more traumatic (if, indeed, as traumatic) and with no greater long-term consequences, whether physical, emotional or psychological, than the process to which B has been or will be subjected."

Much discussion in court centred over whether G had a small scar on her genitals or not, which led Sir James to discuss the relative severity of this variety of Type IV female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

Making suggestions for the future, Sir James drew attention to a "dearth of medical experts" in paediatric FGM and noted the importance of "knowledge and understanding of the classification and categorisation of the various types of FGM."

House of Lords debates FGM and Sharia Law in the UK

Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:31

On Thursday 11 December, there were debates in the House of Lords on female genital mutilation (FGM) and the "impact of Sharia Law on the United Kingdom."

In the first debate. on FGM, raised by Baroness Rendell of Babergh, peers asked about Government progress in encouraging prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

Baroness Tonge, an honorary associate of the NSS, spoke of how FGM "causes untold physical damage to a woman" and equated the practice to a family member sexually abusing a young girl. Lady Tonge called for parents to be prosecuted if their child is the victim of FGM.

Lord Faulks, Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, noted that "it is a source of frustration to all noble Lords that while FGM has been a specific criminal offence for 29 years—the original Act—no prosecutions were brought."

Addressing an ongoing FGM court case, Lord Faulks added that "It is probably not appropriate to comment on what one hopes the outcome of the case would be, but, whatever happens, the publicity that will attend that prosecution should, I hope, send a strong message in itself."

The Minister cited research part-funded by the Government which "revealed that approximately 60,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK."

Lord Faulks told the House that: "The Government are committed to preventing and ending the harmful and unacceptable practice [of FGM]. I agree that successful prosecutions are a key part of stamping out FGM and would send out a strong message on the rule of law."

In his closing remarks, Lord Faulks added that he was glad that "we have left the exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" behind, and he told the House that "the Government are committed to doing everything we can" to stamp out FGM.

In the following debate Baroness Flather, also an honorary associate of the NSS, asked for the Government's "assessment of the impact of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, particularly on women."

Baroness Flather noted that there were now more than 80 Sharia councils in the UK, and argued that "they are not trained lawyers" and raised concerns that the councils do not keep proper records and make "ad hoc" judgements. Citing the retired Bishop of Rochester, Lady Flather argued that "Sharia is discriminatory against women, not only in relation to marriage and children, but in most aspects."

Baroness Warsi began her comments by urging Lady Flather to "read back the speech that she just made." Lady Warsi questioned whether the peers were "debating a series of headlines which regularly appear in the Daily Mail." Lady Flather responded that "there is so much evidence which has been collected by various researchers and taken from women. These are their own stories and views; this is not about headlines."

Lady Warsi continued, arguing that there was a difference between "Sharia and Sharia law" and that "Sharia exists in the United Kingdom in our multicultural society." Lady Warsi raised the example of Sharia-compliant financial bonds and student loans, as well as halal food and circumcision.

Addressing the issue of Muslim women left without rights in unrecognised nikah Islamic 'marriages', Lady Warsi suggested that the Government might formally recognise Islamic religious 'marriages' so that men with multiple wives could be charged with bigamy.

Baroness Cox then drew attention to the situation of women trapped in Islamic 'marriages', and discussed a new report on that subject (covered by the NSS earlier this week). The report detailed the concerns that Lady Flather raised, that women in Islamic 'marriages' are left without legal protection in the event of a 'divorce' and that many Muslim women are unaware of their legal rights.

Lady Cox said: "several Muslim women have told me that men in their communities may each have up to 20 children," adding that this leads to children growing up in "dysfunctional families." Citing information from the report, Lady Cox said: "Two-thirds of those who are married are in polygamous marriages. Some say that they did not know that they were a second or third wife when they were married. Of these, almost all said that their husbands fail to provide them with financial support, in contravention of Islamic teaching. Many of these women are desperately unhappy."

Lord Ahmad, concluding the debate, said "there is no parallel court system in this country" and that the Government "have no intention of changing this position in relation to any part of England and Wales." Lord Ahmad added that "the law of the land will prevail irrespective of what religious practice or community you may belong to."

NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood, who was present at the debates, said it was "shameful" that despite being outlawed, so much FGM was still being carried out in the UK and "going almost entirely unpunished."

On the subject of unregistered marriages, he said it was "deeply problematic" that so many people were undergoing Islamic marriages without also undergoing civilly registered marriages. " In the event of a marriage break-up, this leaves many British citizens, particularly women, in a very vulnerable position without any financial remedies. It also allows polygamy to be practised on an industrial scale."

He added: "Lady Tonge, Lady Flather and Lady Cox should be congratulated for their part in these debates on topics which the Government and Parliament have in the past shied away from. It is to be hoped that the Minister's assurance that "exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions" has been left behind augurs better for the future."

The full text of the debates can be read here.

NSS welcomes new measures to tackle FGM

Posted: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:21

The National Secular Society has welcomed new government measures announced yesterday to crackdown on the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Under an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill, children at risk of FGM could be made to surrender their passports to prevent the practise known as "vacation cutting", in which girls are taken abroad during school holidays and subjected to FGM in countries in Africa and the Middle East where genital mutilation is widespread.

Additionally, the amendment will create a new criminal offence of failing to prevent a girl from falling victim to FGM. Parents or guardians who "fail to protect" their children from genital cutting could face prosecution under the new law. Justice Minister Mike Penning said that the Government wanted "to prosecute those who knowingly let this terrible abuse happen to children they are responsible for".

The amendment also provides for the lifelong anonymity of FGM victims in the hope that this will induce more victims of genital cutting to come forward. The Government hopes this will increase lacklustre rates of conviction for an evidently widespread crime. NHS data released last month revealed that 1,700 women and girls with FGM have been treated in hospitals since April. At least 137,000 women affected by FGM are thought to be living in England and Wales. However, to date only one criminal prosecution for perpetrating genital mutilation has ever taken place in the UK; this trial will start in January 2015.

The new measures will allow individuals to apply for "FGM protection orders" if they believe a child is at risk. Under such an order a child at risk of FGM could have their passport confiscated to prevent their being subjected to genital mutilation abroad; a mandatory medical examination to determine if FGM has already taken place and a requirement that the child remains at one fixed address.

A spokesperson for the National Secular Society welcomed the attempt by the Government to curtail FGM, which has been documented by the World Health Organization in 28 countries around the world, affecting between 100 and 140 million women and girls globally.

The new measures follow warnings from the UK Border Force last month of FGM 'cutters' flying into the UK to perform the procedure and a raft of government initiatives to obstruct those who practise FGM in the UK or who subject children to genital mutilation overseas. Earlier measures announced included the collection of data on the prevalence of FGM for the first time and the use of specialist teams at airports under Operation Eris to monitor flights to high-risk nations and identify potential victims of FGM. The latest measures are explicitly focused on preventing girls being taken abroad for genital cutting, a trend which is particularly prevalent during school summer holidays.

Mike Penning MP described the amendment as an "unprecedented package of measures to strengthen protection for victims, encourage them to report the crime to the police and get support". The Minister added that "legislation alone cannot eradicate this unacceptable practice. But it is important that we change the law where necessary".

The new measures were announced on the same day that anti-FGM campaigner Efua Dorkenoo died. Jane Ellison MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, tweeted: "We have lost Efua Dorkenoo OBE, mother to a movement & beloved inspiration to so many of us. But generations of girls will bless her". Dorkenoo had recently helped launch "The Girl Generation: Together To End FGM", a campaign funded by the Department for International Development aimed at ending FGM in Africa in a single generation.

Council of Europe under pressure to reconsider its resolution condemning male circumcision

Posted: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:02

According to a report in the Times of Israel, the Council of Europe is to revisit last October's resolution which stated that the ritual circumcision of young boys violates their basic human rights.

The decision comes after an Israeli delegation met members of the Council in Paris to argue the case against banning religious circumcision. The matter is scheduled to be debated at a full meeting of the Council in January 2014.

The announcement came after an Israeli delegation led by MK Reuven Rivlin met with members of the council in Paris to argue the case against banning religious circumcision, Israel Radio reported on Tuesday. The matter is scheduled to be debated at a full council meeting next month.

Leader of the delegation, MK Rivlin, speculated that he thought the Council would "change its position".

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution that called male ritual circumcision a "violation of the physical integrity of children" by a vote of 78 to 13, with 15 abstentions in October. The decision was based on a report from the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development led by German rapporteur Marlene Rupprecht.

The resolution also urged member states to "initiate a public debate, including intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards" and to "adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted."

Practices covered by the resolution included female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children, corporal punishment, and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

In November, Israel's Deputy Minister of Religious Services Eli Ben Dahan (Jewish Home party) met with the secretary general of the Council of Europe to urge protection of "religious freedoms", and prevent restrictions on ritual circumcision and animal slaughter.

Slaughter without prior stunning was made illegal in Poland as of January, following a ruling in November by the constitutional court on a petition by animal rights activists. In July, lawmakers voted down a draft amendment to the law on animal protection that would have allowed for the slaughter of animals without prior stunning, as required by Jewish and Muslim law, if carried out so as to follow religious customs.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "Given the large majority in favour of this resolution, I certainly hope that the Council of Europe will not give in to pressure from religious sources and compromise it. It is clearly a breach of a child's human rights to have unnecessary surgical procedures at an age when the individual concerned cannot consent. Europe must stand firm."

Nordic children’s ombudsmen take historic step to protect children’s rights

Posted: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:47

Yesterday, during a meeting in Oslo, Nordic ombudsmen for children, Nordic paediatricians, and paediatric surgeons agreed a resolution urging their national governments to work for a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.

The children's ombudsmen from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), along with the Chair of the Danish Children's Council and the Children's spokesperson for Greenland passed a resolution to: "Let boys decide for themselves whether they want to be circumcised."

The ombudsmen concluded that: "Circumcision without a medical indication on a person unable to provide informed consent conflicts with basic principles of medical ethics." They found the procedure "to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, articles 12, and 24 (3) which say that children should have the right to express their own views and must be protected from traditional rituals that may be harmful to their health."

Dr Antony Lempert, a GP and spokesperson for the UK Secular Medical Forum (SMF), applauded this historic resolution and urged the UK and devolved Governments to work towards protecting all UK children at risk of forced genital cutting.

He said: "This important statement by the Nordic child protection experts is grounded in common sense. Children's basic rights to bodily integrity and to form their own beliefs should not be overridden because of their parents' religious or cultural practices."

Dr Lempert argued that, "with an increasing awareness of serious irreversible harm caused to boys and girls from forced genital cutting it is time for the genitals of all children to be protected from people with knives and strong religious or cultural beliefs. There can be no justification for healthy children to be forcibly cut. All children deserve society's protection from serious harm."

Latest: European Council condemns male circumcision as human rights violation

Swedish Ombudsman calls for ban on circumcision

Posted: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:17

The Swedish Ombudsman for Children has written to a newspaper calling for the country to outlaw the circumcision of boys.

"Circumcising a child without medical justification or his consent contravenes the child's human rights," wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with representatives from the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Swedish Society of Health Professionals, the Swedish Paediatric Society, and the Swedish Association of Paediatric Surgeons, and published in the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. "The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications."

Mr Malmberg, said the practice of circumcision violates the basic rights of boys and is against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Circumcision was legalised in Sweden in 2001, when a new law permitted religious practitioners to perform the operation if the child is under two months old. After that it has to be done by a physician with the full consent of the parents, who must be fully informed of the implications. It is estimated that some 3,000 boys are circumcised every year in Sweden.

Ombudsmen from across Scandinavia are scheduled to meet today (Monday 30 September) in Oslo, Norway, to discuss the issue.

Last year, an attempt by the far-right Sweden Democrat party to ban circumcision was rejected.