17,122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Forward into the 21st century: Add B and G case.
The human rights provisions of the Convention have now been brought into domestic law by the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Human Rights Act 1998], so violations of human rights law could be litigated in the domestic courts of the UK.
===Forward into the 21st century===
Welch solictor [[Christopher P. Price]] led us into the 21st century with an essay highly critical of child non-therapeutic circumcision in every form.<ref name="price1999">{{REFbook
|last=Price
|note=
}}</ref>
The family law case of [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]] was about two children in need of care. This required [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Munby Judge Munby] to consider both male and female circumcision. Judge Munby realised that male circumcision inflicted at least as much harm as lesser forms of female circumcision. This caused him to rule that male circumcision caused ''significant harm'', which now allows courts to issue care orders to prevent male circumcision.
The case of [[Re L and B (CHILDREN)| L and B (2016)]] was a case in which parents disagreed about the circumcision of two boys. The Muslim father wanted the boys circumcised, however the court ruled that no order should be issued so the boys could decide for themselves when they are of age. In this highly significant case, Mrs. Justice Roberts took the decision away from either parents and gave it to the boys, thereby recognising the boys' right to self-determination. Her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights| human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument