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 have been only two successful prosecutions 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 from 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 circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham. At least three babies have bled to death from circumcision in the UK since 2009: Celian Noumbiwe, Angelo Ofori-Mintah, and Goodluck Caubergs.
Between 2012 and 2022, the General Medical Council (GMC) dealt with 39 complaints relating to 30 doctors regarding circumcisions. The complaints include incidents in which children's penises were left deformed and babies required blood transfusions.
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
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.
Mother calls for boys to have legal protection from genital cutting
Posted: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 08:06
A woman is challenging a Crown Prosecution Service decision not to prosecute a doctor after her son was subjected to a harmful circumcision without her consent.
According to the Sunday Times, the boy was in such pain after his genitals were cut that he could not wear a nappy.
The mother's lawyer, Saimo Chahal QC, a partner at the London law firm Bindmans, is seeking to challenge a Crown Prosecution Service decision taken last November not to prosecute. His mother, who has not been named in order to protect her son, says boys should be given the same protection as girls get from FGM.
The Sunday Times has reported that the baby was conceived after the mother had a casual affair with a Muslim man. The baby was with the family during the Eid festival when the grandmother took him to be circumcised with the consent of the father but not the mother. The mother has sole parental responsibility.
Speaking to the newspaper, the mother said it was done to make her son identify as Muslim: "His dad said he's going to know he's one of us and he's going to hate you for the way you bring him up if I don't bring him up a Muslim."
Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence in the UK since 1985. But the mother said "nobody really gets" the problem with male circumcision.
"I have had to lay my son on a towel and not even been able to put him in a nappy because he is scratching away and he is in that much pain and somebody has inflicted that on my child," she said.
"Somebody needs to be held accountable for what they are doing to little boys."
The CPS has reportedly previously written to her to say: "Had it been the case that [the doctor] had performed the operation knowing that you did not consent, then potentially his actions would have amounted to assault."
Infant male circumcision is increasingly under the spotlight largely due to an international community of medics, lawyers and human rights workers challenging the practice. A draft bill to end non-therapeutic male genital cutting currently before the Icelandic parliament says circumcision without consent is a violation of children's human rights.
The National Secular Society, which has long campaigned for an end to all forms of forced genital cutting, has called on the UK government to follow the lead of the lawmakers who introduced the bill in Iceland.
In response to the latest story NSS CEO Stephen Evans commented: "For too long, the most basic rights of young boys have been ignored due to an unwillingness to question this particular religious and cultural practice.
"The time has surely come to prioritise child safeguarding over parents' wishes to express their religious beliefs through the cutting of their children's genitals. Parents shouldn't be entitled to demand surgical procedures that are contrary to a child's best interests."
