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
Success! Amazon withdraws infant circumcision training kits following NSS campaign
Posted: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:14
Amazon UK has confirmed it has withdrawn infant circumcision training kits from sale over child safety concerns following a National Secular Society request to do so.
The Society said Amazon risked normalising unnecessary and risky surgery by allowing a group called ESP to sell the kits on its site. In a letter Dr Antony Lempert, the chair of the NSS's Secular Medical Forum, asked Doug Gurr, the chief executive of Amazon UK, to remove the kits from sale permanently.
"Male circumcision in the UK is wholly unregulated and we fear that the sale of this product may encourage unqualified practitioners to carry out unnecessary surgery on infants in non-clinical conditions, resulting in serious harm," Dr Lempert wrote.
"Non-therapeutic circumcision is unethical and unnecessary and is putting infant boys at risk of death and serious injury. This practice could be encouraged by the morally negligent sale of infant circumcision training kits to the public."
It is unclear whether Amazon's decision, which has been reported in The Independent, is permanent. Similar kits remain on sale (in white and black) on its US site. An Amazon spokesperson told the NSS that these cannot be imported to the UK.
In the UK the kits were priced between £365.16 and £456.60. They included mock torsos with genitals, scissors and scalpels. One was advertised as including "the foreskin, glans penis, frenulum, meatus and coronal groove".
The sales pitch on the Amazon website, which came from a third party seller, said the kits were "made with soft, lifelike material, which is pliable, delicate, and realistic to the touch". They were sold in a variety of colours, and several associated accessories were also on sale separately.
The NSS questioned whether allowing the sale of such items was consistent with Amazon UK's Supply Chain Standards policy, which requires sellers to process the risks of the items they sell. It also voiced concern that the sales pitch for the kits suggested circumcision is done primarily for health reasons.
Dr Lempert also said the sellers had misrepresented the health benefits of circumcision. "No medical association in the world actively recommends routine infant male circumcision for health reasons," he wrote. "Any associated claims for medical benefit of surgical training equipment should be accurate."
The NSS, which campaigns for non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision to be outlawed, welcomed Amazon UK's decision to remove the kits from sale. Its chief executive Stephen Evans said: "No child should be subjected to unnecessary medical surgery. The morally negligent sale of infant circumcision training kits to the public normalises this form of abuse and risks encouraging it.
"A growing number of medics and lawyers are questioning forced genital cutting and recognising the need to safeguard boys from this unethical practice. Religious freedom is not an absolute right and certainly doesn't justify the amputation of healthy, functioning body parts from babies' bodies."
Although data is limited, infant circumcision has been linked to serious injuries and deaths. In 2009, the emergency department of Birmingham Children's Hospital admitted 105 boys for circumcision related injuries. In 2011 the same hospital admitted 11 baby boys aged 0-1 years old to their paediatric intensive care unit with life-threatening complications directly caused by circumcision.
In 2012 a nurse in Oldham was found guilty of manslaughter after killing a baby boy in a botched circumcision two years earlier.
The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons has said there is little if any reason to circumcise boys under five years old. In January 2015 the head of the family division of the High Court in England and Wales, Sir James Munby, said non-therapeutic infant male circumcision caused "significant harm" to boys.
This week, Manoj Shenoy, president of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists, told The Independent that the training kits "are not medically appropriate" and said he had concerns they could increase unregulated circumcision.
There is also a growing international medical consensus against ritual circumcision. 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 (KNMG) urged doctors to adopt "a strong policy of deterrence" on infant male circumcision, which it called "a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity". KNMG 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.
Belgian federal committee rules against ritual circumcision
Posted: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:16
A Belgian federal government committee has ruled against the circumcision of infant boys for reasons other than medical necessity.
The Committee for Bio-Ethics ruled that bodily integrity was more important than religious faith.
"As circumcision is irreversible and therefore a radical operation, we find the physical integrity of the child takes precedence over the belief system of the parents," said Marie-Geneviève Pinsar, the committee's chair.
The committee was responding to a question posed by a group of doctors from Brussels in 2014. It said it took three years to make its decision because of the question's religious and cultural importance. Estimates in Belgium suggest 15% of men are circumcised.
The decision will not be binding in law, but it adds to the growing weight of medical opinion against unnecessary male circumcision. In 2010 the Royal Dutch Medical Society (KNMG) advised doctors to discourage parents from having their sons circumcised, urging "a strong policy of deterrence".
It said "non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity" and added that the procedure can cause complications including bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks.
KNMG 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. The Scandinavian children's ombudsmen issued a joint statement saying children should be allowed to choose for themselves.
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.
The National Secular Society is committed to ending non-consensual surgery on children when it is performed for religious rather than medical reasons. Antony Lempert, of its Secular Medical Forum, commented:
"The decision by the Belgian government's ethics committee is a welcome addition to the growing international consensus that the surgical assignation of a child's genitals with the religious or cultural preferences of their parents violates medical ethics, even when the child is a boy born into a Jewish or Muslim community.
"That these religious communities feel strongly about the practice of ritual male genital cutting is undeniably the main reason why many have shied away from tackling this practice. Babies can neither resist nor complain yet many adult men are now describing their horror at what was done to them in the name of someone else's beliefs and some have spoken of the lifelong complications. Many within the religious communities themselves are also turning away from the practice in order to protect their children from what is now known to cause significant and irreversible harm.
"Child safeguarding procedures have been developed precisely because parents and cultures cannot and do not always protect the children in their care from harm. To deny a child the most basic of protection from permanent bodily modification especially on the most sensitive and private part of his body is undeniably a violation of his rights.
"UK law should be applied consistently. Repeatedly, UK judges have ruled to protect children from similar and arguably less severe practices on the grounds that the child cannot be assumed to have a belief system and must be guaranteed bodily integrity until they are old enough to make informed decisions about their own body. In the SMF we have long argued that the application of the same principles should result in an immediate end to the cutting of any child's healthy genitals for religious or cultural reasons."
Discuss this on Facebook.
