17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Male circumcision or MGM: Add text.
[63] In the present case the point arises in striking form. The family, as I have said are Muslims. I assume, therefore, that B either has been or will in due course be circumcised. Yet, entirely understandably, and, if I may say so, entirely appropriately, this is not a matter that has been raised before me. There is no suggestion, nor could there be, that B’s circumcision can or should give rise to care proceedings. So, given the nature of the local authority’s case on this point, we are in this curious situation. G’s FGM Type IV (had it been proved) would have been relied upon by the local authority, prior to its change of stance referred to above, as justifying the adoption of both children, even though on any objective view it might be thought that G would have subjected to a process much less invasive, no more traumatic (if, indeed, as traumatic) and with no greater long-term consequences, whether physical, emotional or psychological, than the process to which B has been or will be subjected.<ref name="bangham2015" />
</blockquote>
Judge Mumby commented on British ''Children Act 1989'' that a finding of "significant harm" must be found before a court can issue a care order.<ref name="bangham2015" />
Judge Mumby concluded with a finding that male circumcision does in fact constitute significant harm:
<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>