Difference between revisions of "Laws"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (set wiki links to new articles)
(Wikify.)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Assault is not permitted in any country or state on earth by law.''' This should mean that this topic should have been dealt with worldwide for children.
 
'''Assault is not permitted in any country or state on earth by law.''' This should mean that this topic should have been dealt with worldwide for children.
  
−
However, many (adult) supporters of circumcision believe that removing the healthy [[foreskin]] from the healthy [[penis]] of a healthy boy (often enough without anesthesia or even anesthesia) is not a physical injury. In addition, it is often argued that something is allowed if it is not forbidden ''explicitly''. However, if, for example, bodily harm is explicitly forbidden, but genital mutilation as a type of bodily harm is ''only'' forbidden implicitly, it is difficult to derive permission from this.
+
However, many (adult) supporters of circumcision believe that removing the healthy [[foreskin]] from the healthy [[penis]] of a healthy boy (often enough without anesthesia or even anesthesia) is not a physical injury. In addition, it is often argued that something is allowed if it is not forbidden ''explicitly''. However, if, for example, [[bodily harm]] is explicitly forbidden, but genital mutilation as a type of bodily harm is ''only'' forbidden implicitly, it is difficult to derive permission from this.
  
 
The legal situation on the subject of [[HGM]] is very different around the world. This article attempts to summarize the applicable laws with regard to [[HGM]] in the case of minors, without claiming to be exhaustive:
 
The legal situation on the subject of [[HGM]] is very different around the world. This article attempts to summarize the applicable laws with regard to [[HGM]] in the case of minors, without claiming to be exhaustive:
Line 25: Line 25:
 
=== Germany ===
 
=== Germany ===
 
==== Constitution ====
 
==== Constitution ====
−
The German Constitution (''Grundgesetz'', GG) speaks out clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without medical indication. The relevant articles are:
+
The German Constitution (''Grundgesetz'', GG) speaks out clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without [[medical indication]]. The relevant articles are:
 
* [[Art. 1 GG]]
 
* [[Art. 1 GG]]
 
* [[Art. 2 GG]]
 
* [[Art. 2 GG]]
Line 75: Line 75:
 
=== Switzerland ===
 
=== Switzerland ===
 
==== Federal Constitution ====
 
==== Federal Constitution ====
−
The Swiss Federal Constitution (''Bundesverfassung'', BV) is clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without medical indication. The relevant articles are:
+
The Swiss Federal Constitution (''Bundesverfassung'', BV) is clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without [[medical indication]]. The relevant articles are:
  
 
* [[Art. 7 BV]] - Human dignity
 
* [[Art. 7 BV]] - Human dignity
Line 93: Line 93:
 
==== Legal opinions ====
 
==== Legal opinions ====
 
In March 2018, the chairman of the [[[Pro Kinderrechte Schweiz]] ''(Pro Children's Rights Switzerland)'' association, Christoph Geissbühler, published an extensive ''"Legal assessment of genital circumcision of boys on the basis of medical facts"''<ref>[http://www.pro-kinderrechte.ch/site/assets/files/1031/rechtliche_beurteilung_auf_der_grundlage_medizinischer_fakten-2018.pdf Legal Assessment of Genital Circumcision of Boys on the Basis of Medical Facts], PDF, as of 2018-08</ref>. It notes that in Switzerland previously there were mainly four legal assessments on the [[amputation]] of the foreskin in healthy boys, although the authors would have assessed the legal situation differently. What all articles have in common, however, is that they hardly take medical facts into account for their own legal assessments and that they sometimes even misrepresent them. The goal achieved by the association was to finally adequately consider the medical facts for the legal assessment.
 
In March 2018, the chairman of the [[[Pro Kinderrechte Schweiz]] ''(Pro Children's Rights Switzerland)'' association, Christoph Geissbühler, published an extensive ''"Legal assessment of genital circumcision of boys on the basis of medical facts"''<ref>[http://www.pro-kinderrechte.ch/site/assets/files/1031/rechtliche_beurteilung_auf_der_grundlage_medizinischer_fakten-2018.pdf Legal Assessment of Genital Circumcision of Boys on the Basis of Medical Facts], PDF, as of 2018-08</ref>. It notes that in Switzerland previously there were mainly four legal assessments on the [[amputation]] of the foreskin in healthy boys, although the authors would have assessed the legal situation differently. What all articles have in common, however, is that they hardly take medical facts into account for their own legal assessments and that they sometimes even misrepresent them. The goal achieved by the association was to finally adequately consider the medical facts for the legal assessment.
 +
 +
=== United Kingdom ===
 +
==== Statutes ====
 +
* [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents Offences Against the Person Act 1861]
 +
* [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12 Children and Young Persons Act 1933]
 +
* [[Children Act 1989]]
 +
* [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Human Rights Act 1998]
 +
 +
==== Case law ====
 +
* [https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HL-1985-Gillick-v.-West-Norfolk-and-Wisbech-Area-Health-Authority-and-Anr..pdf Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and another] (1985)
 +
* [https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/r-v-brown-discrimination-0956.php R v Brown] (1994)
 +
* [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]] (2015)
 +
* [[Re L and B (CHILDREN)]] (2016)
 +
 +
==== Commentary ====
 +
* {{REFdocument
 +
|title=Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/
 +
|contribution=
 +
|last=Price
 +
|first=Christopher P.
 +
|init=CP
 +
|author-link=Christopher P. Price
 +
|publisher=Circumcision Reference Library
 +
|format=
 +
|date=1996-12
 +
|accessdate=2021-09-07
 +
}}
 +
* {{REFjournal
 +
|last=Edge
 +
|first=Peter W.
 +
|init=PW
 +
|author-link=
 +
|title=Male circumcision after the human rights act 1998
 +
|journal=J Civil Liberties
 +
|date=2000
 +
|volume=5
 +
|issue=
 +
|pages=320
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/edge1/
 +
|accessdate=2020-05-10
 +
}}
 +
* {{REFjournal
 +
|last=Fox
 +
|first=Marie
 +
|init=M
 +
|author-link=
 +
|last2=Thomson
 +
|first2=Michael
 +
|init2=M
 +
|author2-link=
 +
|etal=so
 +
|title=Bodily Integrity, Embodiment and the Regulation of Parental Choice
 +
|journal=Journal of Law and Society
 +
|location=
 +
|date=2017
 +
|volume=44
 +
|issue=4
 +
|pages=501-31
 +
|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/122232/3/Fox_Thomson_Bod_Int_revised%206March17.pdf
 +
|archived=
 +
|quote=
 +
|pubmedID=
 +
|pubmedCID=
 +
|DOI=
 +
|accessdate=2020-09-08
 +
}}
 +
* {{REFjournal
 +
|last=Möller
 +
|first=Kai
 +
|init=K
 +
|author-link=
 +
|title=Male and Female Genital Cutting: Between the Best Interest of the Child and Genital Mutilation
 +
|journal=Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
 +
|date=2020-06-26
 +
|volume=
 +
|issue=
 +
|pages=
 +
|url=https://academic.oup.com/ojls/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqaa001/5862902
 +
|DOI=10.1093/ojls/gqaa001
 +
|accessdate=2020-09-08
 +
}}
  
 
{{SEEALSO}}
 
{{SEEALSO}}

Latest revision as of 13:55, 26 February 2024

Assault is not permitted in any country or state on earth by law. This should mean that this topic should have been dealt with worldwide for children.

However, many (adult) supporters of circumcision believe that removing the healthy foreskin from the healthy penis of a healthy boy (often enough without anesthesia or even anesthesia) is not a physical injury. In addition, it is often argued that something is allowed if it is not forbidden explicitly. However, if, for example, bodily harm is explicitly forbidden, but genital mutilation as a type of bodily harm is only forbidden implicitly, it is difficult to derive permission from this.

The legal situation on the subject of HGM is very different around the world. This article attempts to summarize the applicable laws with regard to HGM in the case of minors, without claiming to be exhaustive:

United Nations

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for details.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

See UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for details.


Europe

Council of Europe: Bioethics Convention

The "Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine", which came into force in 1999, clearly states that genital mutilation in children is prohibited.


Denmark

In Denmark, a bill was suggested in 2018 raising the minimum age for non-medical circumcision to 18 years. Previously, a petition[1] had produced the 50,000 votes required for a hearing in parliament.


Germany

Constitution

The German Constitution (Grundgesetz, GG) speaks out clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without medical indication. The relevant articles are:

Civil Code

On 2012-12-12 the German government anchored a law in the German Civil Code (BGB) that in principle allows parents to mutilate the genitals of their underage boys. The law represents a foreign body in German legislation and a "fall into sin of the constitutional state"[2] (Prof. em. Reinhard Merkel). Similar to Sweden, the so-called Mohel clause were used to revive the basic rights led to absurdity.

Social Code

In the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch, SGB) there is an interesting passage that is suitable to financially prosecute people who voluntarily submit to HGM for aesthetic reasons. However, it will probably not apply to minors, as the circumcision law currently largely protects their parents in their decision. With FGM, § 226a StGB is available as a legal tool.

Criminal Code

The German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) offers sufficient tools to punish genital mutilation:


France

In 2012, the French government justified the admissibility of medically not indicated genital mutilation in underage boys with the religious freedom guaranteed in the constitution (possibly as a reaction to the fierce Circumcision Debate in Germany).[3] There are specific regulations only in Alsace-Lorraine (a decree of the emperor of 1862 regulating the certification of mohels).[4]


Iceland

In Iceland, FGM has been a criminal offense against girls since 2005.

In 2018, a bill was introduced to raise the minimum age for non-medical circumcision for boys to 18 years. It provides for a six-year prison sentence for "the partial or total removal of sexual organs" from third parties.[5]


Sweden

In Sweden, MGM has been allowed for minors since 2001 under certain conditions. In 2018, however, a bill was introduced that raises the minimum age for non-medical circumcision to 18 years.


Switzerland

Federal Constitution

The Swiss Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassung, BV) is clearly against the fact that the genitals of children may be modified without medical indication. The relevant articles are:

Criminal Code

The Swiss Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) offers sufficient tools to punish genital mutilation:

Legal opinions

In March 2018, the chairman of the [[[Pro Kinderrechte Schweiz]] (Pro Children's Rights Switzerland) association, Christoph Geissbühler, published an extensive "Legal assessment of genital circumcision of boys on the basis of medical facts"[6]. It notes that in Switzerland previously there were mainly four legal assessments on the amputation of the foreskin in healthy boys, although the authors would have assessed the legal situation differently. What all articles have in common, however, is that they hardly take medical facts into account for their own legal assessments and that they sometimes even misrepresent them. The goal achieved by the association was to finally adequately consider the medical facts for the legal assessment.

United Kingdom

Statutes

Case law

Commentary

See also

References

  1. ↑ Danish petition against MGM
  2. ↑ https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/staatsrechtler-beschneidung-von-jungen-ist-religioeses.694.de.html?dram:article_id=218490
  3. ↑ Interview with Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls: La France a une part juive incontestable In: Information juive. No. 326, October 2012, p. 8.
  4. ↑ Edwige Belliard, Laurence Herry, Yohann Bénard, Édouard Crépey, Julie Burguburu and others: Réflexions sur la laïcité. In: Conseil d’État, Rapport public 2004. La Documentation française, Paris 2004, ISBN 2-11-005595-2, S. 331–332.
  5. ↑ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-male-circumcision-ban-religious-leaders-outrage-mp-bill-proposed-a8217696.html
  6. ↑ Legal Assessment of Genital Circumcision of Boys on the Basis of Medical Facts, PDF, as of 2018-08
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Laws&oldid=36072"