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
“Growing recognition” that circumcision of children is wrong, as Danish doctors call for it to end
Posted: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:47
The Danish Medical Association has made a "symbolic" statement calling for an end to male circumcision, arguing that the procedure should only ever be performed with "informed consent".
The Association said that male circumcision involves "pain" and the "risk of complications" and that it was "ethically unacceptable" to perform the operation "without the informed consent of the person undergoing the procedure."
"It is most consistent with the individual's right to self-determination that parents not be allowed to make this decision."
Circumcision should be an "informed personal choice" left to the individual to decide for themselves when they come of age, the Association said.
Though deeply critical of the practice, the Association has stopped short of calling for an outright ban, saying that it would be "difficult to predict the consequences" of a complete prohibition.
Lisa Moller, President of the Medical Association's Ethics Committee, said that the areas "is ethically, culturally and religiously complex, and we worry whether a legal ban might result in unauthorised circumcisions."
Instead, the new policy position says that the "process towards the elimination of circumcision of boys" should be undertaken in dialogue with the religious minorities that practice it.
The statement was welcomed by Doctor Antony Lempert of the National Secular Society's Secular Medical Forum.
"The Danish Medical Association has added its weight to the growing recognition that 'it is wrong to deny an individual the right to choose whether or not they want to be circumcised.' This unequivocal position statement, welcomed by the SMF, recognises that the surgical infliction of parents' religious or cultural beliefs on a normal child's healthy body represents a life-long burden to be borne by the owner of the body.
"It is encouraging that Denmark has joined the growing number of countries willing to challenge harmful religious privilege and practice. The SMF supports the choice not to call for a ban. There is no need to ban an activity that would already be illegal were existing laws against violent assault on vulnerable people implemented.
"The principles of child safeguarding are that children should be protected from serious avoidable harm inflicted on them until such time as they have matured sufficiently to protect themselves and to make their own decisions about what is best for them. That these principles still need to be stated in defence of a child's right to protection from assault is a reflection of the enduring power wielded by adults with religious beliefs.
"The assumption that the child belongs or will later choose to belong to their parents' belief system or culture is increasingly exposed as wishful thinking.
"In the name of tolerance, cultural relativism and widespread misinformation, necessary challenge to traditional practices has been ducked mainly for fear of offending religious adults or communities. But these communities are not homogenous and many within them would welcome support for increased child protection."
Dr Lempert added that in response to campaign work by the Secular Medical Forum, the British Medical Association was considering an update to its position on male circumcision, last revised in 2006.
NSS calls on Parliament not to ignore religious infringement on children’s rights
Posted: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:16
In a submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the National Secular Society warned that religion's role in state education is impeding the rights and freedoms of children and young people growing up in the UK.
In a response to the Committee's inquiry into the UK's record on children's rights, the NSS recommended the repeal of exceptions to the Equality Act that permit discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in certain circumstances.
Earlier this year the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the UK to repeal laws requiring the provision of 'broadly Christian' worship in UK schools – and also called for pupils to be given the independent right of withdrawal.
The Society expressed its alarm over the Government's refusal to address this issue, pointing out that in the overwhelming majority of cases, school communities are made up of pupils from a variety of religion and belief backgrounds. This means that even with limited withdrawal rights, requiring acts of "broadly Christian" worship in which pupils by law are required to "take part" undermines young people's freedom of religion and belief.
It was recently reported that a school in Scotland had punished non-religious pupils for refusing to attend mass.
Another area of blatant discrimination is in school admissions, and the NSS said it remained "deeply concerned about the UK's failure to address religious discrimination in 'faith' school admissions."
Government proposals to allow new free schools to discriminate in all of their admissions "will serve to increase levels of faith-based discrimination against children in our education system", the submission said.
Aside from the state education system, the NSS said new efforts were required to identify unregistered schools, including the granting of new powers and resources which may be required by local authorities to take effective action.
Other recommendations made to the Joint Committee on Human Rights included the creation of a statutory duty on all schools, including faith schools, to teach age-appropriate sex and relationships education.
Evidence submitted by the Society also included concerns over the UK's lack of progress in tackling FGM and ritual circumcision.
"We remain seriously concerned at the UK's failure to successfully prosecute a single case of female genital mutilation (FGM)," the Society wrote.
"Most alarmingly, 30 years after FGM was made illegal in the UK, a 2016 Home Affairs Committee report found that 'some clinicians are ignoring the duty on frontline healthcare professionals, social care workers and teachers to record data on FGM incidence'."
It also urged the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) to address the finding of Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, that if "FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision."
"While girls are at least theoretically legally protected from non-consensual non-medical circumcision, the same protections do not extend to boys. Non-medical male circumcision (usually for religious reasons) is almost entirely unregulated in the UK," the NSS said.
