ISSUES
: Domestic Violence
Chapter 1: Domestic violence
14
Don’t compare male circumcision with
FGM
The common practice of cutting a boy’s foreskin for religious reasons bears no relation
to the abominable act of FGM, writes Simon Hochhauser.
By Simon Hochhauser, Co-Chairman of Milah UK
L
ast week, the Girl Summit
conference in London rightly
focused the news agenda’s
attention on female genital
mutilation (FGM). Hosted by David
Cameron and led by Theresa
May and Justine Greening, the
conference was the first of its
kind in the UK – a country where
an estimated 66,000 women are
living with the consequences of a
barbarically intrusive practice.
FGM, which involves the partial or
complete removal of the genitalia,
is a crime because it is abhorrent by
any measure. It subjugates women,
makes
intercourse
extremely
difficult and painful, and can be
the cause of a number of serious
medical complications, including
not only haemorrhage but also
urinary retention, urinary infection,
wound infection and septicaemia.
Sadly, in the countries where it is
most widely performed, hygiene is
poor, and thus both hepatitis and
tetanus have also resulted.
Contrary to what Neil Lyndon wrote
yesterday in
Telegraph Men
, none
of this is comparable to the practice
of male religious circumcision. Mr
Lyndon would have us believe that
the practice – known as ‘Brit Milah’
in the Jewish community – should
be considered in the same light
as FGM. It’s a bizarre argument
to make, rather like comparing ear
piercing with sawing off a person’s
entire ear with a rusty hacksaw.
Brit Milah is a minor procedure.
When carried out by a trained
practitioner in a clean environment
it has no recognised negative
impact on the child or on the rest
of his life. Of course there are
risks associated with any such
procedure. Mr Lyndon points to
deaths of Angelo Ofori-Mintah and
Goodluck Caubergs, who both
bled to death after undergoing
circumcision. But it is disingenuous
to suggest that these two isolated
tragedies, which (incidentally) bear
no resemblance to conventional
Brit Milah as it is carried out today,
are indicative of a widespread
problem.
The facts speak for themselves.
According to the World Health
Organization, circumcision of male
babies results in “a very low rate of
adverse events, which are usually
minor (0.2–0.4%)”. These figures
would no doubt be much lower
still if they referred only to properly
regulated and responsibly carried
out circumcisions.
Mr Lyndon’s suggestion is that,
while a third of the male population
of the planet is circumcised,
the practice is not challenged in
the same way as FGM has been
because culturally we are not
‘comfortable’ taking issue with
it. I would like to offer a slightly
different explanation: we’re very
happy! There are no international
movements calling for an end to
circumcision because the billions
of men around the planet who
have been circumcised have not
experienced any negative effects.
In fact, the religious and cultural
significance of the practice
means that, to them, it is an
overwhelmingly positive event. Put
simply, circumcision has not had
an adverse impact on their lives.
Maybe there are some people
who do consider it to have been
a negative experience and who
feel that they would have liked to
have had the choice. But I would
contend that there would be many,
many more people who would feel
much more aggrieved if they had
been prevented from undergoing
the procedure as an infant, as
mandated by their faith.
Nevertheless, both groups of people
have rights whichmust be respected,
so how should we reconcile them?
Normal practice, where there is a
question about the religious and/or
physical well-being of an infant, is to
defer to their parents, who we tend
to assume have the best interests
of their child at heart. Parents
don’t always get it right – hence
the campaigns against FGM – but
any equivalent campaign against
male circumcision would have to be
accompanied by an overwhelming
body of objective scientific evidence
that demonstrated significant harm
to the child. As far as circumcision
goes, there is no such evidence.
Some scientists even claim that it is
medically beneficial.
Mr
Lyndon
dismissively
characterises the view that
male religious circumcision isn’t
comparable to FGM as “nitwit
feminism in which males are of
no consequence at all”. I disagree
entirely. Given the blindingly obvious
practical and medical differences
between the procedures, it is
deeply irresponsible to attribute the
different treatment of these topics as
some sort of underhanded feminist
conspiracy. To do so threatens
simultaneously
to
generate
unwarranted attacks on religious
practice, and undermine the
important campaign against FGM.
30 July 2014
Ö
Ö
The above information is
reprinted with kind permission
from
The Telegraph
. Please
visit
for
further information.
© Telegraph Media Group
Limited 2016
