We are committed to ending all forms of forced non-therapeutic genital cutting.
This includes female genital mutilation (FGM) and ritual circumcision of boys.
A child's right to bodily autonomy must not be overridden by other people's religious or cultural beliefs.
The National Secular Society supports a person's most fundamental right to grow up with an intact body and to make their own choices about permanent bodily modifications.
All forms of forced cutting on children's genitals breach basic child rights and safeguarding guidance.
Several communities have genital cutting traditions, often rooted in religious beliefs. But children, and particularly babies and young infants, are incapable of giving consent to such medically unnecessary, harmful, painful and permanent procedures.
Sometimes health benefits for non-therapeutic genital cutting are claimed despite the evidence to the contrary. All forms of forced genital cutting risk serious emotional, sexual, and physical harm – including death.
Child safeguarding must always be prioritised above the desire of adults to express their belief through forced cutting of children's genitals.
Female genital mutilation (FGM)
"It is irrelevant whether or not a person believed the operation to be necessary in the child's best interests as a matter of custom or ritual."
We are committed to the eradication of forced genital cutting of girls and women known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in all its forms.
There are thought to be well over 100,000 women and girls affected by FGM living in the UK. We work with like-minded organisations to protect girls from the harm of forced genital cutting.
FGM practices vary. Some forms involve a pinprick or the removal of a small amount of tissue from the clitoris. Other forms include complete removal of the clitoris and labia, and stitching the vulva closed. Communities which practice FGM often cite religion as a motivation.
All forms of FGM are child abuse and are rightly illegal in the UK. But some British girls are still unprotected. Some have been sent abroad to undergo the procedure and others are having it performed secretly in this country.
There has been only one successful prosecution for FGM since it was banned in 1985. We are concerned that fear of upsetting cultural and religious sensitivities is preventing authorities from tackling FGM effectively.
"...a right specifically for African families who want to carry on their tradition whilst living in this country"
As with all forms of forced genital cutting, those who speak out against FGM are often accused of disrespecting their parents or cultural heritage, and of over-dramatising a 'minor' procedure that others 'don't complain about'. Together with the perceived humiliation of speaking about one's own genitals, these factors combine to ensure that many sufferers are reluctant to speak out.
Ending FGM requires sustained civil society action to change attitudes and inform girls of their rights.
Male circumcision
While all forms of FGM are rightfully banned, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is permitted in UK law.
The foreskin is a normal body part with physical, sexual and immunological functions. Removing it from non-consenting children has been associated with various physical and psychological difficulties. These are likely to be greatly under-reported because people who have experienced sexual harm are often reluctant to reveal it as societal dismissal or stigmatisation may compound the harm.
Circumcision is excruciatingly painful. When performed on babies, little to no anaesthesia is used. Even when performed under anaesthesia on older children, the recovery entails weeks of pain and discomfort.
The procedure is also dangerous. Between 1988 and 2014, there were 22,000 harms recorded by the NHS resulting circumcision. They included scarring and full penis amputation. 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. In 2007, a newborn baby went into cardiac arrest minutes after he was circumcised in a London synagogue, and subsequently died.
Any claims of marginal health benefits of circumcision are extremely contested. No national medical, paediatric, surgical or urological society recommends routine circumcision of all boys as a health intervention. There is now growing concern among doctors that existing ethical principles of non-therapeutic childhood surgery should no longer include an exception for non-therapeutic circumcision.
62% of Brits would support a law prohibiting the circumcision of children for non-medical reasons. Only 13% would oppose it.
There is very limited regulation of non-therapeutic circumcision in the UK. We do not know how many such procedures are performed annually or the degree of harm, as there is no requirement for any follow up or audit and the boys themselves are too young to complain.
It is now being recognised more widely that non-therapeutic religious and cultural circumcision is a breach of children's rights. We want to see the same protections for girls' bodily autonomy extended to boys.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to support an end to non-consensual religious genital cutting
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Danish bid to create age of consent for genital cutting set to fail
Posted: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:57
An attempt to outlaw the cutting of healthy children's genitals in Denmark is set to fail, despite the opinions of children's rights activists and medical experts.
On Tuesday the Liberal Party (Venstre) announced that it would oppose a proposal to introduce a gender-neutral age of consent of 18 for circumcision unless it is medically necessary. Venstre currently leads the ruling coalition in Denmark.
Lena Nyhus, the chair of pressure group Intact Denmark, launched the proposal as a citizens' initiative in January. This tool allows people to put items of interest on the parliamentary agenda if they can gain the support of 50,000 people within 180 days.
By this Wednesday afternoon Nyhus's petition had 44,932 signatures.
It says society has a "special obligation to protect children's fundamental rights until they reach an age and maturity where they can take over this responsibility themselves".
It adds that "all children under the age of 18 regardless of sex, cultural background or religious convictions" should "have the same legal requirements for bodily integrity and autonomy".
When she launched the petition Nyhus said: "If people want to let themselves be circumcised then they should have the opportunity to make that choice as an adult. Otherwise, they ought to be allowed to grow up with their body intact."
The two junior members of the ruling coalition, the Liberal Alliance and the Conservative Party, have said their MPs will be given a free vote on the issue. The Socialist People's Party (SF) is the only one requiring its MPs to vote in favour of the proposal.
Earlier this month SF health spokesperson Kirsten Normann Andersen said the issue was "very simple".
"We had no problems deciding to forbid female circumcision, we had no problem scrapping the right for parents to smack children, and now it's time to get to grips with this issue."
A spokesperson for Venstre, Jakob Ellemann-Jensen, told the Berlingske newspaper the issue had split the party. "Many have veered both for and against. There are really a lot of arguments both for and against, and many among us held different views."
Stephen Evans, the National Secular Society's CEO, said the latest developments were "frustrating" but added that it was "encouraging to see growing pressure for action to protect the right of children to grow up with intact bodies".
"There are two clear reasons why action on forced genital cutting is needed. Firstly there is a clear medical consensus that ritual infant circumcision is harmful. And secondly children must be given the chance to decide what to do with their own bodies when they are old enough to do so.
"It's frustrating to see politicians giving in to religious groups' scaremongering, but Intact Denmark has made a compelling argument which will resonate in its own country and many others. Politicians around the world should take note of it."
Earlier this month an influential children's rights group strongly criticised the ritual circumcision of boys in an official report. The Child Rights International Network said the practice "goes against medical ethics" and was a "violation of bodily integrity" which "unnecessarily" exposes children to risks.
In 2016 the Danish Medical Association said circumcision should only be performed with "informed consent". The Royal Dutch Medical Society, the Council of Europe and the Nordic children's ombudsmen are also among those to recommend discouraging the practice in recent years.
Opposition to restrictions is mainly driven by concern about Jewish and Muslim religious sensitivities. Earlier this month the Jewish group Mosaiske claimed the Danish proposal "threatens the right of religious minorities to exist on a par with their fellow citizens".
The Danish Health and Medicines Authority has recently estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 boys are subject to forced genital cutting in Denmark each year, mainly from Jewish and Muslim backgrounds.
In 2014 an opinion poll by Danish newspaper Metroxpress found that close to three-quarters of Danes supported measures to ban the ritual circumcision of boys.
Meanwhile this week religious leaders have stepped up their lobbying of the authorities in Iceland to resist a similar measure. Jonathan Arkush, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told the JC he was "tentatively optimistic" that a ban on the circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons may not pass after visiting officials in Reykjavik.
Global rights group: forced genital cutting violates medical ethics
Posted: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:24
The National Secular Society has reiterated its call for an end to forced genital cutting after an international children's rights advocacy organisation said the practice "goes against medical ethics".
In its newly-released 2018 report the Child Rights International Network (CRIN) called the ritual circumcision of infant males for non-medical reasons a "violation of bodily integrity" which "unnecessarily" exposes children to risks.
"When performed for religious or cultural - not medical - reasons, it flatly designates routine circumcision as medically unjustifiable," the report said. "In fact, there's growing support within the medical community against male circumcision as a routine practice since its non-therapeutic basis means it does not comply with medical ethics.
"Routine male circumcision involves the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason from one of the most sensitive body parts, unnecessarily exposing a child to the risks of surgery, and usually at an age when they lack the capacity to consent or refuse consent.
"Exposing a child to such risks without curative or rehabilitative justification goes against medical ethics, as well as parental responsibilities to protect a child from injury and harm."
The report noted that the recorded complications arising from male genital cutting include bleeding, panic attacks, infection, disfigurement, necrosis [the uncontrolled death of cells in an organ], amputation and death.
CRIN added that "the pace for legally recognising children's bodily integrity is increasing". It cited a bill currently under consideration in Iceland to introduce prison terms for anyone guilty of "removing part or all" of a child's sexual organs. It also highlighted Malta's decision to ban non-medical genital surgery on intersex infants in 2015.
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans welcomed the report and called on the UK government to "take steps to enforce an age of consent for ritual genital cutting".
"CRIN is a highly-respected organisation which puts children first. Its report rightly addresses a normalised form of abuse which violates children's bodily integrity and the basic principles of medical ethics.
"No child should have the decision to cut their genitals made on their behalf. Politicians in the UK and indeed around the world should heed this call and make sure those too young to consent to this procedure are not subjected to it for any reason other than medical necessity."
There are currently few positive signs of change on the issue in the UK. Earlier this month a report in the Icelandic press said British diplomats were among those who had given disapproving feedback to their Icelandic counterparts over the proposal to ban ritual genital cutting there.
The leading Republican and Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives have also issued a joint letter urging Iceland to stop the bill from advancing any further.
But there is a growing medical consensus against the cutting of boys' genitals. In September a Belgian federal government committee ruled against the circumcision of infant boys for reasons other than medical necessity.
In 2010 the Royal Dutch Medical Society urged doctors to adopt "a strong policy of deterrence" on infant male circumcision. It called the practice "a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity". It also said any medical advantages of circumcision were significantly outnumbered by the risks and other disadvantages, such as the loss of up to 30% of erogenous tissue.
In 2013 an international group of physicians criticised the American Academy of Paediatrics for promoting infant male circumcision. The Council of Europe adopted a non-binding resolution advising member states not to allow the ritual circumcision of children unconditionally, at least for very young children. In a joint statement, the Nordic children's ombudsmen condemned non-therapeutic infant circumcision as violating fundamental medical-ethical principles.
And in 2016 the Danish Medical Association said circumcision should only be performed with "informed consent".
Children's right to physical integrity and protection from physical injury is protected by the International Treaty on the Rights of the Child.
CRIN is a global research, policy and advocacy organisation which bases its work on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its report also criticised sex assignment of intersex children, the forced sterilisation of children with learning disabilities and virginity testing as violations of children's bodily integrity.
