Difference between revisions of "Mikael Aktor"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 8: Line 8:
 
The head of The Jewish Society in Denmark, Dan Rosenberg Asmussen, urged Aktor to read a statement of Rosenberg Asmussen which informs the auditorium of the Scientific Symposium, that Aktor does not speak on behalf of all Danish Jews. Aktor did so but also stated that he had never claimed to speak for all Danish Jews. The host of the Symposium, German University professor [[Matthias Franz]], later informed the auditorium, that Rosenberg Asmussen had also asked him to publish the statement which he refused to do, saying that science will never follow advices from religion.
 
The head of The Jewish Society in Denmark, Dan Rosenberg Asmussen, urged Aktor to read a statement of Rosenberg Asmussen which informs the auditorium of the Scientific Symposium, that Aktor does not speak on behalf of all Danish Jews. Aktor did so but also stated that he had never claimed to speak for all Danish Jews. The host of the Symposium, German University professor [[Matthias Franz]], later informed the auditorium, that Rosenberg Asmussen had also asked him to publish the statement which he refused to do, saying that science will never follow advices from religion.
  
−
{{NYT de}}
+
In 2020 he spoke in a video message on [[WWDOGA]]:
−
2020 sprach er in einer Videobotschaft zum [[WWDOGA]]:
 
  
 
{{Citation
 
{{Citation
−
  |Text=Hallo alle, ich bin Mikael von [[Intact Denmark]]. Ich bin Jude, wurde als Baby beschnitten und bin jetzt stellvertretender Vorsitzender von [[Intact Denmark]]. Ich wünsche [[MOGiS e.V.|MOGiS]] und den anderen beteiligten Organisationen viel Glück bei der Online-Kundgebung des [[WWDOGA]].
+
  |Text=Hi everybody, I'm Mikael from [[Intact Denmark]]. I am Jewish, I was circumcised as a baby and now I'm [vice] chairman of the Danish organization [[Intact Denmark]]. I wish [[MOGiS e.V.|MOGiS]] and the other organizations the best of luck with your online manifestation of the [[Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy]].
  
−
Heute möchte ich über Scham sprechen. Ich habe die Tage einen interessanten Artikel über die soziale Funktion von Scham gelesen. Anlass war, dass einigen unserer dänischen Politiker vorgeworfen wurde, sie hätten Menschen aufgefordert, sich zu schämen, weil sie keine soziale Distanz halten. Scham sollte kein politisches Instrument sein, sagen dazu die Kritiker. Aber der Autor des Artikels war viel nuancierter.
+
Today I want to talk to you about shame. The other day I read a very interesting article about the social function of shame. The occasion was that some Danish politicians had been critized for telling people to be shameful for not keeping social distance. Shame should not be a political tool, the critics say. But the author of this article was actually much more nuanced.
  
−
So gibt es Scham für einen sinnvollen, kollektiven Zweck: Wir sollten uns für Rassismus schämen, dafür, immer mehr Ungleichheit zu schaffen, Unternehmen sollten sich für Steuerhinterziehung schämen usw. Aber dann gibt es noch die harte, brutale Art der Scham. Der Autor erwähnt Donald Trump als Beispiel für Letzteres. Er ist schamlos. Sein finales Beispiel in puncto Scham zeigt uns, wie wichtig Scham tatsächlich ist: Sie ist eine Voraussetzung für Zivilisation, denn - und das ist der interessante Punkt daran: durch die Scham sind die Normen der Gemeinschaft direkt an den Körper jedes einzelnen Bürgers gekoppelt. Scham ist eine Emotion, es ist eine körperliche Reaktion.
+
There is shame for a meaning, for a collective purpose: we should be shameful of racism, we should be shameful for creating more and more inequality of society, and companies should be shameful of tax evasion, etc. But then there is the brutal shame, and the author mentioned Donald Trump as an example of that. He is shameless. His total showdown with shame tells us how important shame is: It is a precondition of civilization because - and that's the interesting thing: because in shame the norms of the community are tied directly to the body of each individual citizen. Shame is an emotion, it is a bodily reaction.
  
−
Dies lässt mich an den Slogan von [[Intact Denmark]] denken, der auf Dänisch lautet: "Man skærer da ikke i raske børn!" Auf Deutsch so etwas wie: "Man schneidet doch nicht in gesunde Kinder!" Etwas schwerer ist es, es ins Englische zu übersetzen. Vielleicht: "Of course, no one should cut into healthy children's bodies."
+
And this makes me think of the slogan of [[Intact Denmark]] which in Danish goes: "Man skærer da ikke i raske børn!" In German it would be something like: "Man schneidet doch nicht in gesunde Kinder!" And in English it's a bit more difficult to translate, but I guess something like: "Of course, no one should cut into healthy children's bodies."
  
−
Nun haben einige unserer Gegner unseren Slogan kritisiert und gesagt, damit würde auf die Minderheiten, die Beschneidung praktizieren, mit Fingern gezeigt und diese ausgegrenzt. Wir marginalisieren angeblich diese Minderheiten aus der Gemeinschaft der guten Bürger durch die einfache Binsenweisheit, dass selbstverständlich kein Elternteil seinem Kind absichtlich Schaden zufügen will, und den gleichzeitigen Vorewurf, dass sie wiederum genau das tun.
+
Now some of our opponents have critized our slogan saying that it's a way of othering or pointing fingers at those minorities that practice circumcision. We are allegedly marginalizing these minorities from the community of good citizens by the simple truism that of course no parent deliberately want to harm their child and the accusation that that is exactly what they do.
  
−
Diese Kritik ist eine emotionale Kritik. Diejenigen, die die Beschneidungspraxis verteidigen, wollen nicht als solche entlarvt werden, die in gesunde Kinder schneiden und sie schädigen. In der Tat ist das beschämend und sie haben gute Gründe, sich von unserem Slogan getroffen zu fühlen. Sie kritisieren unsere Art, realistisch über Beschneidung zu sprechen, nämlich als schädliche Amputation eines gesunden Teils des Penis von Jungen. Sie wollen nur in positiven Sätzen über die Beschneidung sprechen, sie als Willkommensgruß in der Welt sehen und als Ritual von großer Bedeutung.
+
The critique is an emotional critique. Those who defend the practice of circumcision do not want to be exposed as some who cut and harm healthy children. It's indeed shameful and they have good reasons to feel hit by our slogan. They critizise our way of speaking about circumcision in realistic terms, as a harmful amputation of healthy parts of boys' penises. They only want to talk about circumcision in positive phrases as a welcome to the world and a ritual which has great significance, etc.
  
−
Aus den Reaktionen auf unseren Slogan geht jedoch hervor, dass der Vorwurf, einem Kind werde unnötig Schaden zugefügt, mit Scham aufgenommen wird. Daher hat mir der Zeitungsartikel klargemacht, dass unser Slogan wirkt. Verteidiger der Beschneidung fühlen sich beschämt, was sie auch sollten.
+
But from the reactions to our slogan it's clear that the accusation of harming a child unnecessarily, is received with shame. Therefore the newspaper article made me understand that our slogan does its job. It makes defenders of circumcision feel shameful which they should.
  
−
Aber nicht nur Eltern und Beschneider. Auch Länder, die die Beschneidung von Jungen erlauben. Wie Dänemark und Deutschland und der Rest der Welt. Sogar die Vereinten Nationen müssen beschuldigt werden. Obwohl die Vereinten Nationen ein Dokument haben, die [[UN-Kinderrechtskonvention]], deren Ziel eindeutig darin besteht, Kinder vor unnötiger Gewalt und Schaden zu schützen, war die UN nicht bereit, die Logik ihrer eigenen Konvention zu akzeptieren, dass dies für alle Kinder gilt, nicht nur Mädchen. Stattdessen antworten die Vereinten Nationen ausweichend und wollen das Problem nicht direkt ansprechen.
+
But not only parents and circumcisers. Also countries that make circumcision of boys legal. Like for instance Denmark and Germany and the rest of the world should feel shameful. Even the United Nations must be blamed. Although UN has a document, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, whose aim clearly is to protect children from unnecessary violence and harm, UN has not been willing to accept the logic of their own convention which is that this goes for all children, not only girls. Instead UN talks evasively and don't want to address the issue directly.
  
−
Dies ist die größte Schande - dass internationale Menschenrechtsinstitutionen nicht die Konsequenzen ihrer eigenen Resolutionen ziehen, und dass Staaten, die die Konvention unterzeichnet haben, keine weiteren Maßnahmen ergreifen.
+
This is the greatest shame - that international human rights organizations do not draw the consequences of their own resolutions and that states, that have subscribed to the convention, don't follow up by action.
  
−
Lassen Sie uns also weiter auf die Schande der Beschneidung hinweisen. Wir brauchen keine aggressiven Hassreden, wir brauchen keine verbalen Angriffe, wir müssen nur darauf hinweisen, dass das Schneiden in gesunde Genitalien von Babys nicht die richtige Art ist, die eigenen Kinder zu behandeln.
+
So let's go on pointing out the shame of circumcision. We don't need aggressive hate speech, we don't need verbal attacks, we only need to point out that cutting into baby's healthy genitals is not the right way of treating our children.
  
−
Vielen Dank und nochmals viel Glück mit dem Online-[[WWDOGA]]!
+
Thank you and again best of luck with the online [[Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy]]!
 
  |Author=[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]
 
  |Author=[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]
 
  |Source=[[WWDOGA]] 2020
 
  |Source=[[WWDOGA]] 2020

Revision as of 18:36, 19 May 2020

Mikael Aktor

Mikael Aktor (born 12 June 1949), is a Jewish intactivist from Denmark, Associate Professor, PhD, University of Southern Denmark, Department of History, Study of Religions in Odense, and vice chairman of Intact Denmark.

He spoke at the WWDOGA 2017 and 2018 in Cologne, Germany.

One day after the WWDOGA 2017, he held a speech about "Jewish Voices in the Danish Debate on MGM and the Danish Legal Situation" on the Symposium "Jungenbeschneidung in Deutschland - Eine Bestandsaufnahme" (Circumcision on boys in Germany - an inventory) in Düsseldorf.

The head of The Jewish Society in Denmark, Dan Rosenberg Asmussen, urged Aktor to read a statement of Rosenberg Asmussen which informs the auditorium of the Scientific Symposium, that Aktor does not speak on behalf of all Danish Jews. Aktor did so but also stated that he had never claimed to speak for all Danish Jews. The host of the Symposium, German University professor Matthias Franz, later informed the auditorium, that Rosenberg Asmussen had also asked him to publish the statement which he refused to do, saying that science will never follow advices from religion.

In 2020 he spoke in a video message on WWDOGA:

“ Hi everybody, I'm Mikael from Intact Denmark. I am Jewish, I was circumcised as a baby and now I'm [vice] chairman of the Danish organization Intact Denmark. I wish MOGiS and the other organizations the best of luck with your online manifestation of the Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy.

Today I want to talk to you about shame. The other day I read a very interesting article about the social function of shame. The occasion was that some Danish politicians had been critized for telling people to be shameful for not keeping social distance. Shame should not be a political tool, the critics say. But the author of this article was actually much more nuanced.

There is shame for a meaning, for a collective purpose: we should be shameful of racism, we should be shameful for creating more and more inequality of society, and companies should be shameful of tax evasion, etc. But then there is the brutal shame, and the author mentioned Donald Trump as an example of that. He is shameless. His total showdown with shame tells us how important shame is: It is a precondition of civilization because - and that's the interesting thing: because in shame the norms of the community are tied directly to the body of each individual citizen. Shame is an emotion, it is a bodily reaction.

And this makes me think of the slogan of Intact Denmark which in Danish goes: "Man skærer da ikke i raske børn!" In German it would be something like: "Man schneidet doch nicht in gesunde Kinder!" And in English it's a bit more difficult to translate, but I guess something like: "Of course, no one should cut into healthy children's bodies."

Now some of our opponents have critized our slogan saying that it's a way of othering or pointing fingers at those minorities that practice circumcision. We are allegedly marginalizing these minorities from the community of good citizens by the simple truism that of course no parent deliberately want to harm their child and the accusation that that is exactly what they do.

The critique is an emotional critique. Those who defend the practice of circumcision do not want to be exposed as some who cut and harm healthy children. It's indeed shameful and they have good reasons to feel hit by our slogan. They critizise our way of speaking about circumcision in realistic terms, as a harmful amputation of healthy parts of boys' penises. They only want to talk about circumcision in positive phrases as a welcome to the world and a ritual which has great significance, etc.

But from the reactions to our slogan it's clear that the accusation of harming a child unnecessarily, is received with shame. Therefore the newspaper article made me understand that our slogan does its job. It makes defenders of circumcision feel shameful which they should.

But not only parents and circumcisers. Also countries that make circumcision of boys legal. Like for instance Denmark and Germany and the rest of the world should feel shameful. Even the United Nations must be blamed. Although UN has a document, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, whose aim clearly is to protect children from unnecessary violence and harm, UN has not been willing to accept the logic of their own convention which is that this goes for all children, not only girls. Instead UN talks evasively and don't want to address the issue directly.

This is the greatest shame - that international human rights organizations do not draw the consequences of their own resolutions and that states, that have subscribed to the convention, don't follow up by action.

So let's go on pointing out the shame of circumcision. We don't need aggressive hate speech, we don't need verbal attacks, we only need to point out that cutting into baby's healthy genitals is not the right way of treating our children.

Thank you and again best of luck with the online Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy!
– Mikael Aktor (WWDOGA 2020)[1]

Publications

  • REFweb Aktor, Mikael (12 December 2019). Jøde, muslim eller ej – lad drengebørn have deres kønsorganer i fred [Jew, Muslim or not - let male children have their genitals in peace] (Danish), Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 13 December 2019.
  • with Lena Nyhus: "Male Genital Mutilation: Bodily Integrity, Genital Autonomy and Religious Freedom." 2016. Farum: Intact Denmark.
  • "Comments to the ‘Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Denmark’ of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.“ 2016. Copenhagen: Intact Denmark.
  • "Whose Rights? The Danish Debate on Ritual Infant Male Circumcision as a Human Rights Issue." 2015. In Contemporary Views on Comparative Religion.

External links

References

  1. ↑ REFweb WWDOGA 2020 - Mikael Aktor, YouTube, MOGiS e.V.. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Mikael_Aktor&oldid=14600"