22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify
The family law case of [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]] (2015) 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 [https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20174 Resolution 1952] of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument
|title=Children's right to physical integrity
|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0
===Human Rights Act 1998===
The United Kingdom became a founder-member of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe] on 5 May 1949 and therefore subject to the [https://rm.coe.int/1680a2353d ''European Convention on Human Rights''] (1950). Under that ''Convention'' the United Kingdom may be sued in the [https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c European Court of Human Rights] (Strasbourg) for alleged [[human rights ]] violations.
Certain parts of the Convention seems applicable to the non-therapeutic circumcision of minor boys:
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
The case clearly established the right of children in the UK to protection under the ECHR. Nevertheless, no known cases have applied international [[human rights ]] law specifically to the practice of non-therapeutic child circumcision in the UK.
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.
Resolution no. 1952 (2013) 'Children's right to physical integrity' of the Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe, which includes the issue of physical integrity of intersex children for the first time, was adopted on October 1, 2013 following an initiative of the German SPD politician [[Marlene Rupprecht]].<ref name="aktor2016">{{REFbook
}}</ref> but has not prohibited non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors.
Although the UK has been a member of the Council of Europe, a [[human rights ]] organisation since 1949, a state-party to the [[ICCPR]] since 1976, and the CRC since 1991, the General Medical Council has not revised its policies and procedures to recognise the [[human rights ]] of child patients to the physical security of their person.
==The guidance of the British Medical Association==
* 2019 [https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors]
The 2019 BMA guidance regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is divided into twelve “cards”. Card Four discusses law. [[Human rights]] law is recognised but the BMA fail to understand the significance of [[human rights ]] law. The BMA do not clearly state that [[human rights ]] law grants rights to children which helps to define the best interests of the child and should be respected and protected.
The BMA seems to lean toward protecting the alleged right of its members to profit from carrying out non-therapeutic circumcision on boys, in the face of increasingly severe legal concerns.