17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Male circumcision or MGM: Add text.
<blockquote>
[69] Mr Hayes points to the recognition, both by Wall J, as he then was, and by the Court of Appeal in Re J ''(Specific Issue Orders: Muslim Upbringing and Circumcision)'' [1999] 2 FLR 678, 693, on appeal Re J ''(Specific Issue Orders: Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision)'' [2000] 1 FLR 571, 573, 576, that male circumcision does involve harm, or the risk of harm. Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGM WHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. '''In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to ''significant harm'', as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.''' (Emphasis added.)<ref name="bangham2015" />
</blockquote>
|accessdate=2020-09-12
}}
Judge Munby then made a distinction between FGM and male circumcision:
<blockquote>
[72] It is at this point in the analysis, as it seems to me, that the clear distinction between FGM and male circumcision appears. Whereas it can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of FGM on a child, the position is quite different with male circumcision. Society and the law, including family law, are prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons, while no longer being willing to tolerate FGM in any of its forms. There are, after all, at least two important distinctions between the two. FGM has no basis in any religion; male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons. FGM has no medical justification and confers no health benefits; male circumcision is seen by some (although opinions are divided) as providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits. Be that as it may, “reasonable” parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision.
[73] I conclude therefore that although both involve significant harm, there is a very clear distinction in family law between FGM and male circumcision. FGM in any form will suffice to establish ‘threshold’ in accordance with section 31 of the Children Act 1989; male circumcision without more will not.<ref name="bangham2015" />
</blockquote>
==Female genital mutilation==